Skip to main content

I'd just like to second...

...Sandra Mansell’s call to condemn any plan to ban head-scarfs in schools despite having never worn one, being utterly unlikely to ever wear one, yadda yadda.

First off, this’ll annoy the many Brethren using Western Australian schools. Brethren generally keep to themselves, are quiet, polite and respectful. We should be, if anything, encouraging these traits in school-children.

Second off, it’s a sure-fire way to push moderate, rational and friendly Muslims toward being immoderate, irrational and unfriendly. That’s just plain dumb.

Comments

Leon RJ Brooks said…
More random than excellent, but an RSS feed is yours if I can figure out how to switch one on.

If I need to. PlanetLA is picking it up from somewhere. Ah, they’re using Atom from http://leonbrooks.blogspot.com/atom.xml and if that’s no use perhaps you can grab PlanetLA’s RSS feed (http://planet.linux.org.au/rss20.xml) and filter that?
skribe said…
Hey Leon:

You know, I have to say the thing that I find more attrocious is the fact that we force our children to wear school uniforms in the first place. But given that uniforms are an accepted practice, then there should be no exceptions. Once you allow one exception to the practice you have to allow them all and religious propriety, being a choice, should have no greater sway than any other choice ie. fashion. Lose the uniforms or come up with a workable compromise - casual clothing in the school colours is one idea - and this 'problem' goes away.
Leon RJ Brooks said…
Yah. However, in some cases the colours themselves may be offensive.

I think the best indicator of the need for a variation is the seriousness with which the child and their parents take the dress requirements.

I don’s know of a standard index of seriousness but “religious conviction” in today’s schools indicates that they take it seriously enough to risk being regarded (and treated) as nutcases by the concensus majority. Rightly or wrongly. In a way, it’s a social bidding system: if we’re prepared to stick our necks out this far, we earn a certain degree of freedom of choice WRT clothing.

Simple, common-sense guides like “neat and tasteful” have been tried and found not to work. One girl’s idea of “tasteful” is another boy’s idea of “come and get me”. Or Twit A will wear a neat tee-shirt printed with a baphomet, and Twit B will wear a neat tee-shirt claiming that “Atheism is prophetless speculation” and it will be on for young and old. Or just a Dockers shirt and a ’Pies shirt — or even tream-coloured socks.

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...