Moronic. Everyone of her fellow students and staff at the school should carry a piece of cardboard and the moment she arrives on the scene, place it in front of her face. If they can’t see her face, she certainly has no right to see theirs. KGS
Wrong to ban student with niqab: ombudsman
“According to the DO’s assessment, kicking a student out of class simply because she was wearing a niqab, without taking into account the specific circumstances of her participation, violates the law against discrimination,” Equality Ombudsman Katri Linna wrote in an opinion article in the Dagens Nyheter (DN) newspaper.
Linna’s decision stems from a January 2009 incident in which a Muslim woman was was told she would no longer be welcome at an adult education college in Spånga, west of Stockholm, if she continued to wear her niqab.
The niqab is part of a hijab headress and covers the entire face except for the eyes.
The student reported the matter to the ombudsman, claiming it amounted to religious discrimination, as the school’s decision prevented her from continuing her training to be a pediatric nurse if she continued to wear the niqab.
“DO’s decision on the niqab is unacceptable”
Published 2010-12-01 17:00
REPLICA. Discrimination Ombudsman’s decision on the general ban on the niqab does not comply with the Discrimination Act highlights the need to reform it, but perhaps above all the need to abolish the DO, writes the Sweden Democrats in a replica.
In Sweden we have courts to settle discrimination cases and the way in which the DO handled this matter are beneath contempt. It has put the matter on hold for two years and are now choosing not to pursue the case and obtain a judicial review into how the Swedish anti-discrimination law should apply in this area ( DN Debate 1 / 12 ).
DO’s hope with this decision, which is not going to appeal, is likely to create some sort of court decisions, without interference from the courts.
Under current law, it is already possible to ban clothing that are detrimental to education. DO, however, claims that the general prohibition is inconsistent with the law and says that an individual assessment must be made in each case.
It is an unacceptable conclusion and whether it is the way the law is interpreted, we must bring about a change in the law. Teachers and school management need clear directives on how this issue should be handled. The fact that today is a small number of cases is not interesting when Islam’s emergence in the Swedish society suggests that this problem will increase in future. Have so in regard to
Diversity Survey shows that 90 percent of the Swedish people are opposed to the full veils should be used in schools.
An important aspect is to distinguish between a religious belief and expression. Anyone can ask for, or believe in, which god one pleases, but society can not and should not accept all the concrete expression of faith can give rise to.
In the case of the woman in a niqab is not just about the Muslim woman’s relationship to the teacher but also to the other in the classroom, one aspect that seems to have been overlooked. Also, the fact that the woman planned to train as childcare workers is of interest because, in their prospective future professional course could not work with her face hidden. Wearing the veil is a major departure from the social mores and behavior as is customary in Sweden, and society should not bow to the sectarian demands in this area.
Sweden Democrats would not only ban the niqab in schools but also see a ban in public places in order to be able to maintain a street scene and a norm that is in harmony with one Swedish and Western society, which is of great importance for the Swedes to feel at home in their own country.
This issue also has a greater ideological importance, since this decision of the DO is just one of a series of decisions that gradually pushes the boundaries of what is acceptable in Sweden.
Previously, we have heard demands that schools should not celebrate endings in the church, and commands to refrain from Christian hymns such as “The blomstertid now” – played out, each highlighting the need to scrap the DO.
Discrimination Cases should be handled directly by the courts rather than to go through this unnecessary authority that evidently has no basis in reality and whose activity is essentially contrary to the general perception.
Jimmie Åkesson, leader (SD)
Kent Ekeroth, MP and International Secretary (SD)