Gollywogs - is this guy for real?.

[Dratsy]

Any where jewellery is a safety hazard a turban would be an equal hazard.

I know a few Sikhs and none were a turban yet all consider themselves to be practising their faith, go figure I will have to let them know they are wrong.

My recollection is the woman was told to remove the cross because some folk would find it offensive, not because it was a trinket, and being a person that spends a lot of time in airports I have noticed a lot of the women working in airports wear trinkets so I can only conclude that it was the form of the particular trinket that was at fault.

And if I also recollect correctly it is a duty of all Christians to spread the gospel this being so the display of a crucifix would seem to satisfy this obligation, while remaining in employment by not harassing everyone you meet at work with "have you heard the good news?"

 

But this is all by the by,

 

If you are black and find the golliwog offensive then I can only recommend you grow a thicker skin because life will throw a lot worse at you than a golliwog (even if it is filled with rocks), so if you want to survive, thrive and be happy toughen up.

 

If you are white and find the golliwog offensive then my advice to you is STOP BEING A PATRONISING TWAT

[Gibber]

So, Dratsy and Gibber, as the Sikh is allowed, in law, the religious freedom to wear this core requirement of his faith, where is the problem? If it WAS a core requirement of the Christian faith, I think you'd find that would be allowed by the same laws and rights.

 

What's the problem with that? How does it affect YOU?

 

I just don't like the way religion is given special dispensation. Because there isn't a Church of Dee Deeism I have no legal right to violate my company's dress code by turning up to meetings in a Ramones t-shirt.

[scoots]

Dratsy, it's already been explained that Sikh males may style and trim and shave their hair and beard and go without a turban. This changes when he is 'baptised' and becomes a "man" in the eyes of the Gurus. He will even change his name, once baptised, if new to Sikhism, and take the surname Singh (translates as "lion" - its a warrior faith). This doesn't necessarily happen when he is a child or teenager or a man, but when he chooses to do so. Do you understand? For the avoidance of doubt, ask your Sikh "friends" if they have been through the Amrit. If they have and don't wear a turban, they ain't Sikhs. Simples.

 

http://www.searchsikhism.com/five.html

 

Try reading, or talking to them about their faith. It's actually fascinating and the best way to learn.

 

Do you have to be so rampantly Anglo-Saxon/BNP in your attitudes? You're starting to read like Nick Griffin, when it comes to the race issue.

 

By the by, I'm not commenting on the gollywogs, but by extension of your argument, if I am walking down a street and see a group of teens calling your mother/wife/daughter a slut, a slag and a filthy whore, just for being female, pardon me for being "patronising" enough to be offended at their behaviour and take issue with them. How I choose to do that is up to me.

 

You write from the viewpoint of someone who would walk past and ignore such an occurrence, because it doesn't concern you. There's a bigger picture. It's called society. If you don't like it, stand for election, or vote for Nick then shuffle back to your cave or burrow.

 

Gibber, it's the society we live in. Do what L.Ron did and start a Church of DeeDee. You never know, by the next census, or the one after, the t-shirt, ripped jeans, dark glasses and fright wig might have the same recognised status as the turban. Would that make you ArchDeeDee? HighRamone? UberDeeDee? It's your religion, your choice.

 

PS Dratsy, preaching the Gospel with the image of a dead guy on a cross? Hmmm not sure about your brand of Christianity. Most I know are more concerned with the important bit that (they say) came after. You know, the "resurrection and ascension"? "Hear the Good News! See the dead guy! He's your God and Saviour. Yup, him. The dead guy!"

[shetlandpeat]

Some facts, as reported

 

Emma Clark, employment specialist at law firm Fox, said: "The court decided today that BA was justified in applying a blanket ban on the wearing of visible jewellery for a customer-facing employee. This decision is a sensible interpretation of the nuances of the indirect discrimination legislation; Eweida's desire to display a cross around her neck in the workplace was a personal choice and not a religious requirement.

 

Some employers choose to include restrictions on the wearing of jewellery as part of their dress code but these restrictions may lead to complaints of discrimination. In Eweida v British Airways Plc [2010] IRLR 322 CA, the employer’s policy allowed employees to wear religious jewellery where it was a requirement of their faith, but the employer instructed Miss Eweida, a Christian employee, to remove a plain silver cross as it considered that there is no requirement for Christians to display any jewellery. The Court of Appeal agreed and held that the rule did not amount to indirect discrimination. However, the employer did subsequently allow more flexibility in the operation of its policy to permit the open wearing of all religious jewellery.

 

All here if you want to know more..http://www.xperthr.co.uk/default.aspx

[Redrobbie99]

What about the wearing of the veil or the burka is that a religious requirement or a political statement .

[Guest posiedon]

^ Is that a rhetorical question?

[scoots]

In this country, at least, it is recognised as a religious requirement. The problem is with interpretation of the writings of the Prophet. Two persons, reading the same writings, can interpret them with significant differences. The closest comparison I can think of, for Westerners, are the quatrains of Nostradamus, although obviously the Prophet was not quite so vague in his wording (nearly, though!) Translation also often leads to issues in interpretation, with differing synonyms being adopted and almost completely different meanings being arrived at.

 

The whole "martyrs and their 72 virgins" arises from just such an issue. This does not even originate in the Qur'an but in the Hadith, which is the collected sayings attributed to the Prophet and other founders of Islam. Hadith 2,562 of the book known as the "Sunan al-Tirmidhi", mentions that the "least reward for the people of Heaven will be 8,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby."

 

Nowt about virgins. But the truth of that matter is that few of the kids turned into walking bombs or fundamentalised ever read all the writings, and are, instead, fed them by imams taking their interpretations of the words of the Prophet, turning this to their own goals or aims for their religion and people, and the jihad they feel they must wage against the infidel West.

 

"The Great Satan" is another good example. The Daily Mail and its ilk will have you believe they are referring to the USA & UK as the Devil himself, because that's what this means to us. But "Shaitan" is from the Hebrew for "Adversary" or "Enemy". See the problems that can arise?

 

Why can't we just live and let live? Agree that others have their beliefs, but that our society has laws and structures and guidelines, which we live by? Is argument for arguments sake really so attractive?

 

The link that Peat provided (good one, peat! ) is very interesting, when you go through it and provides some insight into Miss Eweida in her campaign against BA...

 

"On at least three occasions between May and September 2006, Miss Eweida came to work wearing a visible cross while in uniform, but concealed it when asked to do so. Indeed, Miss Eweida herself gave evidence that her decision to display the cross was a personal choice rather than a matter of adherence to Christian religious practice."

 

(BTW She did so, knowing full well that BA had a well-established rule banning the overt display of ANY religious imagery or jewellery. As peat pointed out, even though they won this case, BA have still relaxed this rule to keep staff happier. Not the demonised un-Christian left-wing PC brigade that the Mail, Mr Murdoch & others would have you believe, hmmm?)

 

So there you have it, Gibber, Dratsy. "Choice"

[scoots]

But from a purely personal point of view, i must say, you can keep the cross, and the patchwork "Christian" faith with all the horrors, monstrous atrocities and evils it spawned again and again and again (and still does, eh, Holy Father??).

 

Any "religion" capable of coming up with "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet." and the Inquisition (the Albigensian Crusade, 1008-1049, which involved both these points, and saw a conservative 1 million men, women and children slaughtered and often burned alive, all in the name of Christ, is one of the most despicable and covered-up genocides ever) is too "godly" for me... This should be included in History lessons in our schools, as a warning of the excesses of Man, and his willingness to use "religion" as a reason to commit the worst of atrocities. (The Dominicans are a direct result of the Albigensian Heresy. Their founder received a Papal Bull, exempting his men - the "Hounds of God" - from judgement for the most sickening tortures. They perfected the art of opening a man's chest cavity and manipulating and palpating his living heart in their hands, during interrogation. Water-boarding? You don't know you've been born!! And all in the name of God... Unfortunately, once the Crusade was rolled up, they carried on, and on, and on. In fact, the Inquisition really WAS never disbanded by the Catholic Church, and became the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It's the oldest and most significant of the Curia in the Vatican, and was formerly headed by a man named Joseph Ratzinger, from 1981 until 2005, when he was elected Pope - that's RIGHT the way through all the scandals about paedophilia in the priesthood. He and his staff travelled the world, blank cheques in hand, "sorting out" the Church's messes. Disgusting, amoral, corrupt.. words do not suffice.)

 

I've given other reasons, previously, in other threads, relating to what I would term the "borrowing" and subsumption of other religious beliefs and observances, blithely re-labelling them and spouting them as Christianity. So, sorry, Miss Eweida, you get no sympathy from me.

[DizzyKipper]

What about the wearing of the veil or the burka is that a religious requirement or a political statement .

 

 

Headwear: the burka / niqab, etc., as I understand it isn't compulsory. Only the head has to be covered, not the face, with a hijab, say. Clerics have said this is sufficient here.

 

However, some conservative states (such as Saudi Arabia) insist that everything is covered in public. They have a stricter interpretation of the Qur'an.

 

"And say that the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers" etc.

 

Part —Sura 24 (An-Nur), ayat 30-31, Qur'an

 

You can read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13038095 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_clothing

[Scorrie]

Definitely getting more Daily Mail......

 

[Piddly]

If you are white and find the golliwog offensive then my advice to you is STOP BEING A PATRONISING TWAT

 

[JohanofNess]

 

You seem eloquent enough that I doubt you're actually misinterpreting, so I'll chalk you down as a wind up merchant and be on my way.

 

 

Going anywhere nice?.

 

Definitely getting more Daily Mail......

 

 

Getting both sides here bit of daily mail ranting and some lefty apologism but not a lot of common sense from the middle.

[scoots]

It's simple. (My own late-night rant against the Vatican aside, which I really should PM someone about & request a move for it to a more suitable thread )

 

The fact is that legislation states that if someone perceives your conduct/language/etc to be racially offensive, they can make a complaint about it to the authorities. Doesn't mean it's going to go all the way, that's what investigations are for and there's still such a thing as evidence and a need for corroboration of some kind in Scotland, before it can hit court, isn't there?

 

If that IS the case, as I believe, Dratsy, keep your racist/homophobic/other "ist" legislated for (by Scottish/UK Parliament) "jokes" to yourself and any of your mates that might find it funny. If you don't like that, lobby to get it changed back to the "good old days".

 

The middle ground, though, has increasingly been claimed by the cohorts of "civil rights activists/slacktivists", Human Rights "lawyers" (read money-grubbing hypocritical ponces) and comfortably upper middle-clahss "Outraged of Essex" types, who "represent" those they see as being unfortunately "just too backward and ill-educated to represent oneself, don't y'know". These people are obviously seeking to atone for the sins of GrandPapa and Great-Grandpapa, whilst he was serving the Crown/making a fast buck out of indigenous peoples, the Empire over.

 

It started in force with Toh-nee and his Human Rights Hag, Cheri, and unfortunately what should have been - and still is - a basic humanitarian view of our society has been hijacked by an entire industry, in the red corner, and the Daily Mail/Sun/other rag-waving "I'm not racist, but..." Nick Griffin-likes in the true Blue corner.

 

Problem now is, there IS no east solution, because it relies on folk's common sense & sense of humanity. I can see (if I close my eyes and squint and turn out all the lights with a bag over my head) how each side sees this as a problem in the likes of Bradford. But in Shetland? Surely not.

 

Well, I liked to think that, until I read Dratsy's posts, among others.

 

To get back to point, in law, if ANY person perceives that an act or display is racially motivated and intended to cause distress (I'm sure that last has to be in there somewhere), while it may not be appropriate by some sensibilities, do the museum or shop display do these things, INTENTIONALLY?

 

While I have every sympathy for someone feeling upset by something they perceive as outrageous & inappropriate (see my post to Dratsy, about a family member, for instance), they have to abide by the same rulings & legislation as everyone else. Hence the petition, I suppose. But if it's unsuccessful, I would hope they would pick their social conscience up off the floor, dust it down and accept that others in Shetland - while keeping within the law - simply don't agree. Conversely, if enough DO agree, and the SIC go with them and order the removal of these displays, there are processes to fight this, and surely a few young hawks who are willing to tilt at the windmills of Human Rights.

 

I simply don't see the problem here. He has a viewpoint that HE sees is valid. If you don't share it, don't sign. But going all troglodyte over it, insulting him or intimidating him - here or anywhere else - or trying to make out that racism doesn't and couldn't exist in these isles is not a reasoned response, IMO.

 

In short, GET OVER IT.

[Dratsy]

By the by, I'm not commenting on the gollywogs, but by extension of your argument, if I am walking down a street and see a group of teens calling your mother/wife/daughter a slut, a slag and a filthy whore, just for being female, pardon me for being "patronising" enough to be offended at their behaviour and take issue with them. How I choose to do that is up to me.

 

If a group of teens or anyone else for that matter was acting aggressive to anyone I would hope you like me would offended, but on the whole if they are just throwing out some childish names then I know my wife like me would walk on and regret the society created by a bunch of liberal lefty apologists that prevents me from giving them a good clip round the ear for their cheek.

The same liberal lefty apologists that are advocating banning the golliwog.

 

There are laws in place to protect everyone equally from abuse and harm, when the law starts to differentiate between what type of harm can be done to what "type of person" as you good folks advocate then we really. are up turd creek.

 

pps the only requirement in the quran is for a woman to were loose fitting clothes to obscure the contours of her body and to cover her hair, no mention of covering her face.

[I.S]

But it's not just the Qur'an that Muslims abide by. It is the principal book and mainstay of their faith, yes, but the Hadith are very important also.

 

And - IMO - unfortunately, you have the strong influence of the Wahhabi/Salafi, such as Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, who is vehemently anti-West and actually issued a fatwa on the covering of the face, based on HIS interpretation of the teachings of the Prophet and the founders of the faith. He stated that the face of a woman is the ultimate temptation, as it is the face that would be most often seen. So as to avoid this, removing the temptation and remaining "holy", he decreed that the face should be covered when in public, or in company of males other than your husband or family members.

 

Like I say, these guys carry a lot of weight, after all, they originate from Saudi Arabia, and are pretty much the world financiers for Islam. They have spent between $90 and $100 BILLION dollars worldwide in the last 20 odd years, propagating their brand of Islamic fundamentalism. Draw your own conclusions... This is why some Muslim males insist on the wearing of the niqab, or other facial covering, as do some Muslim women.

 

Having said that, many European countries have banned it in public (France didn't introduce a law to ban it, they enforced an existing secular law from Revolutionary times, which banned display of religious symbols - which they considered it to be). So why are we the odd ones out? Maybe it's all that black stuff, and an unwillingness to offend the Saudis (who don't think twice about teaching things like "physical jihad is the 6th pillar of Islam", and "must be embraced" by the holy, so as to "carry out the will of Allah". )