Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Islamic Vinegar

One school policy to rule them all; unless you are an aggrieved Muslim father in which case all bets are off.

That’s right.  Yet another dhimmi appeasement.

A Muslim father has removed his six-year-old daughter from school in protest at her teacher who confiscated her Islamic necklace.

Despite the fact that school regulations do did not permit the wearing of necklaces, Islamic or otherwise.  But Islam is a special basket case isn’t it.  So Tariq played the only card he holds in his hand – the offended Muslim trump.  And did it work?  Well what do you think?

The Year 2 pupil was told to take off her taweez – a chain containing verses from the Koran – after she was caught playing with it at Nottingham Academy last Monday.

A disciplinary action, surely.  You can’t be paying attention in class if you’re fiddling with an item of jewelery you shouldn’t be wearing in the first place.

As a result, Britain’s biggest school have now made a U-turn on their uniform policy, which dictates pupils can only wear one plain pair of metal studs, and say she can now wear the jewellery in class.

A singular act of cowardice from the school.  Religious offence dictates a change in school policy and the school is now guilty of undermining a member of its own staff for upholding the original, sensible rules and keeping discipline in the classroom.  Way to go Nottingham Academy.  You’ll be putting halal meat on the school menu for everyone, including non-Muslims, to eat next.  Oh, wait.  There’s a good chance you already do…

But now the school has shamefully caved in that should be the end of the problem, yes?

However, Mr Tariq has still pulled his daughter out of lessons for over a week after he branded the teacher’s actions an ‘insult to Islam.’

FFS!

Give these idiots an inch and they take a mile of piss.  Verbally disciplining his darling daughter and removing a necklace equates to a  religious hate crime?  Seriously?

He is now demanding that she be placed in a different class away from the teacher who banned her ‘sacred’ locket.

Well the school caved in once so why not issue another outrageous demand to see if the school rolls over even more quickly?  The law of unintended consequences anyone?

Yesterday Mr Tariq said: ‘My daughter was really upset about it when she came home – she was in floods of tears.

How traumatic!  What is the world coming to when a kuffar teacher corrects a distracted Muslim child in the classroom?

‘This is very sacred to her and to our religion. It should not be taken off Muslims and it is something she holds very dear indeed.

All secular schools must kowtow to Muslim demands or else.  Islam is a special case so your rules do not apply to Muslims and don’t you forget it.

‘To have it taken off her for the entire day and be shouted at by her teacher like that is an insult to our religion.

Diddums.   Kids get disciplined by their teachers every day but their parents don’t usually create about it or try to turn it into a religious hate crime.

She said she had only been itching her neck and had got the taweez out to scratch her neck.

Why would she need to take the entire thing out just to scratch her neck?  Or isn’t it Islamic to simply reach behind and scratch?

‘But the teacher thought she was playing with it and swinging it about.

Probably because that is precisely what the girl was doing.

‘The whole thing really upset her and I don’t think she is happy in the class any more.

Kids attend school to be educated.  Not being happy with teacher from time to time is par for the course.  Discipline in the classroom isn’t a popularity contest and nor should it ever be.  Until Miss Tariq learns that “no” means “no” she’s going to remain unhappy.  It’s a shame her father failed to teach her that before she started school.  But then he clearly doesn’t understand what “no” means either.  Nor does the school apparently.

I think it will be better if she moves to a different class so I have taken her out of school until we can get this issue resolved.

I think Tariq should be prosecuted for keeping his daughter out of school and depriving her of part of her education in an attempt to blackmail said school into giving in to his delusional demands.

The academy has now agreed that Saniya can wear the item on religious grounds – except in PE and swimming.

Spineless!

Saniya, who lives with her parents in Bakersfield, Nottinghamshire, said: ‘I wear it every day.  My taweez means a lot to me and I think she should have asked my parents before making me take it off.’

It was teacher’s fault!  And now I can play with my necklace in class whenever I want and not suffer the consequences because they would be an insult to the beliefs of my, and my parents, Dark Ages religion including the bits they make up as they go along.

Headteacher Steve Jones said: ‘After speaking to Mr Tariq about his daughter, we decided Saniya could keep her necklace on in school, under her polo shirt, apart from the PE and swimming lessons.

He’s talking like the child is a special, one-off case.  Here’s news for you Steve Jones, she isn’t and she won’t be.  Not now you have sold out your school rules.  You should have told Tariq to go up himself.  Instead you have let an Islamic genie out of the bottle that will be used against other schools now that you have set a precedent.

We would always consider exemptions on the basis of religious principles.

Then why bother having a school policy at all if any Tom, Dick or Tariq can come along and bend it to suit their own religious prejudices?

Indeed, in Saniya’s case, we were able to reach a compromise with Mr Tariq.’

So the child can remove the necklace but only when the father dictates to the school she can?  And this is called “compromise” is it?

Other parents gathered at the school gates gave mixed opinions on the incident.

One mum, whose son goes to the school, but did not wish to be named, accused the head of caving in and bending the rules.

Bending the rules in this way is a smack in the face to everyone who abides by the rules.  I wouldn’t want to send my kids to any school that prefers to undermine its own staff and policy to suit the unreasonable demands of one religiously intolerant individual.

She said: ‘It is ridiculous that they felt threatened enough to change the rules like this.

If it was a lad with a Christian cross and he was messing with it then I am almost certain the rules wouldn’t have been bent to let him wear it.

And, quite probably, would have been told not to misbehave in class if he went home and whinged to his parents about it.

At the end of the day if the girl is messing with the chain and it is distracting her or others from working then that’s why the rules are there.

Quite.  If this lady gets it why didn’t the school?

Another father said: ‘I agree it was wrong as it does mean that much to them as a religion.

Actually it doesn’t mean any such thing.  If it did the Muslim professionally aggrieved posse would have potted this supposed “insult” by challenging school policies regarding “sacred” necklaces long ago.   I suspect the Nottingham outbreak was down to a one man band.  Expect this “sacred necklace” crap to go viral.

However, they have said she can wear it in class now – so surely that should be the problem resolved.

I have a sign that says Beware Low Flying Pigs he can stick at the bottom of his garden.

30 Comments

  1. RogerC says:

    Anyone who thinks this is resolved has no understanding of the concept of Danegeld.

  2. PeterT says:

    My daugher gets a nursery report every day on which among other things it says what she had to eat that day. ‘Halal chicken’ appeared a few days ago. I don’t mind particularly. If the nursery has 9 kids for whom (or for whose parents, rather) it doesn’t matter, and one for whom it does, its an easy choice.

  3. Lynne says:

    PeterT. But will your daughter feel the same way after she inevitably discovers what halal meat is?

  4. PJH says:

    “I have a sign that says Beware Low Flying Pigs he can stick at the bottom of his garden.”

    Erm, Lynne – pigs (flying or otherwise) are haram and the use of such a sign is so obviously anti-islamic.

    Please destroy it forthwith!

  5. Lynne says:

    LOL! I’ll take ham over haram every time thanks.

  6. Radical Rodent says:

    The head in this case is not only making a very, very large rod for his back, but one that will be applied to all of us in this country, unless we do something to stop it.

  7. “She said she had only been itching her neck..”

    Christ, the school’s clearly failing at teaching them grammar while it’s faffing about with appeasement! Shouldn’t that be more of a worry?

  8. PeterT: “If the nursery has 9 kids for whom (or for whose parents, rather) it doesn’t matter, and one for whom it does, its an easy choice.”

    And when the nursery serves pork ribs for 9 kids and gives the Muslim a boiled egg instead, I’m sure her parents will be equally accommodating.

    Right?

  9. john in cheshire says:

    JuliaM, I agree with everything you have said. In addition as far as Halal meat is concerned, this practise is outrageous in a country such as ours that purports to pride itself on animal welfare. If anyone, normal, had ever seen the way these entities kill their animals then they’d maybe think twice about such lack of concern. I thought we had developed over many centuries methods of caring for animals up to and including the most humane means of putting meat on our tables. To allow this barbaric method to be so pervasive in not only our country but throughout the civilised Western world is quite simply an abomination. I understand that all New Zealand lamb is now killed by the muslim method. Most if not all poultry in our country is killed by muslim slaughter methods. I truly never thought I’d live to see the day when we’d regress where behaviour before modern civilisation was again regarded as acceptable.

  10. CountingCats says:

    Well, there is a very good argument to be used against halal food, and that is”

    It is against my religion to eat meat which has been defiled by sacrifice to a false god.

    How can the powers argue against that?

  11. NickM says:

    Lynne,
    You are tilting at windmills imaginary. I fucking hated school uniform and did everything I could to subvert it. And that without a God in the bag. The real issue is this… I often go out about 8am and I see the kids in their uniforms. Very uniform and all but I pity them. The problem is not someone wanting to wear a Muslim symbol (or a Christian or Jewish one or me wearing a lemniscate, or an aleph)… For the transfinites I do believe in. I can prove them. They make sense – many large Cardinals are my friends – religion does not. Never has but I have beliefs that are cold-forged titanium (like the XB-70 Valkyrie) and a uniform for kids is spooky. That is the real issue here. I had issues at school. Mainly I was taught badly (apart from maths, English and Biology) but this is really not the point. A Muslim lad in this neck of the woods got grief over growing a beard (and therefore being in breach of the uniform code). It wound-up involving the head, local imams, “community leaders” and the Bishop of Salford. Fuck me! Some 14 year-old wants a piss-poor beard and there is all hell on. It is dismal and ultimately it comes down to the idiocy of school uniform.

  12. Tim Newman says:

    It is dismal and ultimately it comes down to the idiocy of school uniform.

    I’m not sure I agree with that. I think school uniforms are a good idea, if for no other reason than their primary purpose: it masks poverty among pupils. Okay, not to the same extent as it used to, now that kids can buy expensive trainers and bring expensive phones to school, but a couple of generations ago a poor kid used to look the exact same as the rich kid in school. I’m not one who worries about inequality, but I think making pupils appear pretty much the same is a good starting point for those who want to then differentiate between them intellectually.

    And I briefly went to a comprehensive school where they abolished the school uniform, and the average kid walking to school looked like a sack of shit tied around the middle. I later went to a boarding school where we all had a uniform, and it was a million times better. Appearances are important in a learning environment: appearances require self discipline, as does learning. There is a good reason why the army makes you polish your boots to mirrors, and there is an equally good reason why they make everyone wear the same clothes from the outset.

  13. Tim Newman says:

    To continue a little:

    I fucking hated school uniform and did everything I could to subvert it.

    Well yeah, but you’re a smart guy and probably also had the self-discipline to learn in any environment. But there would be others who aren’t as smart or self-controlled, and whereas I’m not advocating that schoolkids should be treated as robots as per the Korean system, I also don’t think treating them too much as individuals is the way to go either. There’s a balance to be struck between indoctrination and spoiling schoolkids, and I think that point lies best in a system whereby the administration (e.g. the uniform) treats kids as a mere number and the actual transfer of knowledge (e.g. the teaching and testing) treats them as individuals.

  14. NickM says:

    “Well yeah, but you’re a smart guy and probably also had the self-discipline to learn in any environment”.

    And is that not the point? Between 5 and 18 I learned fuck all. Three years at Nottingham Uni and I had a grasp of bra-ket and GR and stat mech and stuff. I went to Univerisity without a Maths A-Level. I talked my way from Biology to Physics and taught myself Calculus and such. End game was I got a fully-funded MSc in Astrophysics at QMC, London. There were six places in the entire country. I was also offered a PhD in Fusion at St Andys, something to do with wave-guides in Holland and a PhD in chocolate funded by Cadburys (which included 3 grand a year in “consumables” – every female I knew was all over me and I thought astrofizz was cool).

  15. Lynne says:

    …a uniform for kids is spooky. That is the real issue here.

    With all due respect, Nick, that’s grade A bollocks. It is also an underhand diversion from the post itself.

    That you achieved your academic heights without a uniform has no bearing on anything, certainly not this post. This post isn’t about whether uniforms should or should not be worn. It’s about an individual deliberately setting out to flout the rules using a made up insult to religion to get ones own way. It is about an institution going belly up in its haste to be seen to be politically correct. That is the real issue here.

    As for your own dislike of uniforms, intelligence isn’t linked to how you dress to attend school or uni. I didn’t wear a school uniform until I was eleven. I won a place at Saltley Grammar in Birmingham, something that wouldn’t happen in the current educational climate. It was a uniform I was proud to wear because it was the uniform of a top school and I’d worked hard to earn it. And do you know what? I still had my capacity for learning. In fact it made me work harder because it was something you were challenged to live up to.

    I liked wearing a uniform so much I became a copper. After I left the force I finally went to uni. Strangely, wearing civvies had no affect either adversely or positively as I worked my way through the courses I was taking. I would have been very surprised if it had.

    So your point is…?

  16. NickM says:

    My point is I don’t like uniforms and quite frankly I couldn’t give a toss about Muslims violating the uniform code in minor ways. Not least because I don’t like uniforms full-stop. I achieved academically wearing jeans, trainers, a T-shirt, a hoody and a Levi’s denim jacket. And I’m sorry if I learned more and felt more free (not un-related) because I could wear my own clothes. And apart from anything else I felt much more comfortable in civvies than a fecking blazer whilst dealing with H-T electrics.

    I learned more in my street-clothes because I was not part of a “thing”. I was me. I was cool. I was Nick. I was me and therefore I could learn. Not be taught or, frankly, indoctrinated. I was taught well mind (Electromag was taught by a Dr Maxwell!!!). I loved Uni and hated school. An utter waste of 13 years of my life. Dear sweet Jebus! They taught fuck all. I did GCSE French and can only get to first base with ‘Allo ‘Allo. It was pants because it was child-care basically. Nottingham was genuine education.

  17. Lynne says:

    Ah, but you were part of a thing, Nick. You wore the uniform of a student – jeans, T Shirt, trainers etc. You dressed like most your uni peers. Don’t try telling me you didn’t because I attended uni too, remember. I dressed that way also. While the styles and colours varied the basics were the same and have been for at least a couple a generations.

    Punks thought they were trying to be different, to be apart from the herd. But you could recognise one immediately because they all conformed to their own particular dress code. Sure it was wild but it was still a uniform, one they identified with.

    You are not alone in disliking what you class as a uniform. Thousands share your sentiments. My own son and my significant other half didn’t particularly like wearing them either and it has never been a subject of conflict. But that isn’t what the post is about.

    You still insist on missing my point and I wonder if you are doing it deliberately. It isn’t about the uniform code. It is the way that the rules were twisted. And it isn’t confined to schools or uniforms because we see it all the time in other parts of our society. You, of all people know that because you have blogged about it yourself.

    Obtuse doesn’t sit well on you Nick.

  18. PeterT says:

    JuliaM – I think your comment misses the mark. Chicken is a perfectly good food. If the muslim kid was given halal chicken and all the other kids made to eat cabbage then I might be angry. I doubt very much that the nursery would have made all the kids eat rats, even if there was one kid that belonged to the ‘only eats rats’ religion.

    JiC makes a point I thought of making but decided not to. I have never understood people who think its ok to murder animals as long as you do it nicely. Everything pales in significance relative to death. Its not hypocrisy exactly, just a strange ordering of priorities. If we care about animals let’s address the worst thing first; the lesser bad later.

    I could of course try and stir the sht for my own amusement and send an email to the nursery complaining about the use of halal meat, on account of animal cruelty. But I won’t, as this is exactly the kind of thing the professionally outraged do.

    p.s. the nursery serves pork all the time.

  19. NickM says:

    Lynne,
    I am not being obtuse. I addressed your key point – uniform. I did not go off on a wibble about Halal. Now that is obtuse. And no, I didn’t wear a quasi-uniform at uni. I had goths in my class for starters. Jeans and trainers aren’t uni-fare which possibly explains why at the age of 40 I’m still wearing them. Having said all that I knew a lad who wore a three-piece suit though he was kinda bizarre but so what? I’m sorry but if Muslims wish to wear a necklace then so what? There is not a royal road from there to blowing-up trains. And that matters. Ultimately it is a uniform issue and school uniforms are a farce. They are an excuse for poor schools to look good. It’s like the Italian Army – nice uniforms, haven’t won a battle since they were Romans. OK, it’s a bit off that this had to go via the route of religion but essentially that’s how you have to play it these days.

  20. “I have never understood people who think its ok to murder animals as long as you do it nicely.”

    Equally, I’ve never understood people who think it’s possible to murder animals.

  21. NickM: “I’m sorry but if Muslims wish to wear a necklace then so what? “

    Because the rules (agree with them or disagree with them) are there for all, and are not to be swerved by virtue of ‘OhshitthemuslimsarecomplainingwhatarewegoingtodoohshitohshitIknowletsgiveintothem’

    The riles are for ALL or they are for NOBODY. That way lies anarchy….

  22. RAB says:

    No Nick, you were not being obtuse you were being contrary, quite why I know not. The Post was not about “Uniform” (I’ll come back to that) but “Rules” If you wish your daughter to be part of an institution then you abide by the rules of said institution, if you do not wish to abide by set rules, then you are free to take yourself and your daughter somewhere else more conducive to your delicate sensibilities.

    But daddy and his precious Muslim Princess didn’t want to play by the rules, and played the Religion/Race card immediately. The Institution caved in cravenly. Shame on them.

    Read the article carefully. the daughter was “playing” with her necklace… scratching an itch with it (has she no fingernails?) swinging it around… This, according to to Daddy, is a very sacred object. Is this the way one usually treats a very sacred object? One thing is for sure, she wasn’t actually wearing it, because she knew damn well it was against the rules.

    Now then, I went to a Grammar School. I had to pass the 11+ to get into it, and I felt very privileged and proud to be part of it. We had a school uniform, blazer, House tie even, grey trousers, white shirts and black shoes. We even had caps ferchrissakes! Nobody wore them, but we had them stuffed in our bags just in case we had a cap inspection (usually covered in sticky unwrapped toffees and dust and debris) cos you got detention if you couldn’t produce one.

    We all bloody hated our uniform, but we put up with it, for all the reasons Tim Newman outlined above, once those reasons were explained to us. We sent at least half a dozen to Oxbridge every year, and most of the rest of the 6th Form to the Russell group Uni’s. I’m given to understand that my old Alma Mater can only dream of doing that today, since going Comprehensive.

  23. Lynne says:

    Nick, the example involved school uniform rules. But breaking the regs isn’t the message being conveyed. It was the vessel for the message. Personally I don’t give a tinker’s cuss about necklaces being worn in school. I’d put money on the fact that a lot of school girls wear jewelery under their uniforms. I know I did. And had it been discovered and confiscated until the end of the school day I wouldn’t have run home and whinged to my parents about it. My parents certainly wouldn’t have created a fuss about it even though the jewelery I wore was a cross and chain my Gran bought me. I wore it to please her. I still do even though I am:

    a) not religious in the slightest and
    b) she’s been gone for a number of years.

    I do give a toss about someone being accused of a hate crime for doing her job and her employer rolling over to accommodate the accuser because he invoked the magic phrase insult to Islam. The father successfully dictated to the school the conditions under which his daughter may and may not wear the necklace and now he’s trying to dictate which class he will permit his kid to be taught in. That isn’t about uniform, it’s about power. It’s about a rather nasty method of damaging or destroying someone’s career especially if more Muslim fathers decide to chuck their turbans into the ring in order to support a fellow Muslim.

    Oh and Goth is a uniform too. It’s how they choose to identify themselves. You could say that about any kind of group. I still wear jeans and trainers even though I’m (ahem) a tad over 40. Why give up on wearing attire that is so damned comfortable? Wearing a three piece to uni? What’s that about? Did he carry a brolly and briefcase too?

    I’m aware you didn’t go off on a wibble about halal. That was someone else. None of my replies to you involved halal, nor yours to me. Until the last one. Are you being cryptic? I love cryptic.

  24. NickM says:

    I can be cryptic as hell, I have an unbreakable cipher (if you don’t know how it is done – if you do it’s very breakable – ho hum) but I am not being cryptic here. School uniforms are perverse. I have never needed to wear anything like a uniform in the past 22 years. I have never been a copper or a paramedic or a Flight Sergeant or anything like that. I mooch around in Nikes and Levis and a T-shirt. Now you might not like that but I do. I do because for me it symbolizes me and the fact I am not pwned by the state. You might have loved your uniform because it made you out as special but at a “bog-standard” comp it meant nothing to me. It was just silliness. And it has got worse. I see the kids of a morning queueing for the bus dressed like mini-Bertie Woosters and I pity them. It is ludicrous. Most of the rest of the World manages without blazers. The French, the Germans, the Americans manage. What is our malfunction? And no I don’t buy the “disguising poverty” line. We put four year-old kids in uniforms. Give me a break here!

    Regardless of the “bog-standarness” of the comp it don’t matter. It is still vile. Honestly Lynne, seriously, would you object to hijabs? Same thing. A top-down imposed uniform. Would you object to a Catholic girl wearing a crucifix? A Jewish lad in his yarmulke? So why a Muslimah with a necklace? And yes it is ridiculous that her Dad had to cite religious stuff but alas that is the world we live in and alas you can’t just wear what you want (mankinis are pushing it mind) because you just want to. Yes, it is sad you have to have some sort of theological argument but alas it is so. Increasingly so. At least at school level. But my point remains. It is about enforcing uniforms on kids and that is sinister. If I go to a job interview I wear a suit (obviously). If I go to clean out the grid in the stream with a rake you don’t want to know what I wear (not afterwards anyway).

    Most of the time I wear what I did (roughly) at uni 20 years ago. Casual but reasonably smart. So does most everyone else. Am I missing a point here? So why should kids dress-up when I dress-down?

    I had a uni friend called Z and she was a Malaysian Musilmah and she wore jeans and trainers and a T-shirt. She also wore her sacred necklace. Did this make her a worse student of economics? She showed it to me lying on the Downs at the main campus of Nottingham. I showed her the stars. She was just a friend, a mate, and I was walking her home. It is that simples. Uniforms are just wrong unless there is a compelling need. And there isn’t for students and there certainly isn’t for schoolkids.

  25. Lynne says:

    Nick, I get it, you don’t like uniforms. Unfortunately they play an important role in society. It must be hell for you living in a world like that.

    You are missing the point. Deliberately so because I don’t believe for a moment you are that thick. You want to carry on playing this silly game then go ahead. The only reply you’ll get off me will be meh!

  26. RAB says:

    Nick.

    I attended the first Knebworth Festival in 1974. You were one year old. The Allman Brothers Band, The Doobie Brothers, Van Morrison, Mahavishnu Orchestra, The Sensational Alex Harvey Band, Tim Buckley…

    We were individuals, Alternative Society types to a man and woman, no uniforms for us Man!

    Gazing over the 60,000 crowd that day it looked like the Union Army camped out on the eve of Gettysburg… A sea of blue Denim as far as the eye could see. No uniforms? Heh!

  27. NickM says:

    A “uniform” that is not top-downed is not a uniform. Hordes of kids at my secondary school used Head brand sports bag but this wasn’t insisted upon. That is my point. Yeah, folk do tend to follow fashion and yes uniforms are absolutely necessary for various walks of life such as the army, the cops, paramedics but also so are “soft uniforms”. I wouldn’t feel happy with a bank manager in a Che T-shirt and flip-flops smoking a number. A man or woman in a suit – fine. Yeah, clothes maketh the person in many ways but this is a choice. Not a random one I’ll admit. I’d wear something rather diff if I was going for a mortgage or going for a shower but the point remains. This is societal rather than a deranged attempt to impose order by rules. Of course society has unspoken rules such I have mentioned and obviously you don’t try and get get credit for a new car looking like The Dude even though that is a fine look at a festival of popular music. And I’ve been to a folk festival – tragic sights. there mind. Beards you could lose a stoat in and that was just the women.

    So you can call a suit a uniform but my main one was tailored in Hong Kong and I have both a white and a pink shirt to go with it. And a number of ties. In WWII the RAF didn’t issue officers with uniforms – you had to go to a registered tailor and Geoff Wellum (I think) recounts meeting a US RAF officer who had his cut in a particularly dashing way to go with his slim but athletic physique. Doesn’t need to be said but he was a hell of a one with the ladies!

  28. RAB says:

    “A “uniform” that is not top-downed is not a uniform.”

    Sorry Nick love, but it is. Why else would kids today wish to walk about in jeans they look like they’ve just shat themselves in, with a crotch almost down to their knees, continually tugging and pulling at them in case they trip over themselves?

    To be a PART of something, to belong to a collective herd, to fit in and gain kudos and get laid etc etc. Just because it isn’t an imposed Uniform from above, doesn’t make it any the less a uniform if you impose it upon yourself does it?

    The subject of Uniforms and voluntary uniformity would be a good post. I shall give it a ponder…

  29. NickM says:

    You simply can’t uniform yourself. It makes no sense. And oddly enough I never had any problem getting sex after I left school and allegedly self-imposed a uniform. I wore what I wanted or, as the case happened, didn’t. I was much more comfortable wearing what I wished despite any attempts to pervert that into the old “But it’s just a different sort of uniform” stuff. It is not. There is a hell of a difference between following fashion (which I don’t) and being told what to wear. You seem to forget that we can make fashion as well as obey it. I wore a velvet jacket through much of the ’90s. It caught on.

    And lines like…

    “Just because it isn’t an imposed Uniform from above, doesn’t make it any the less a uniform if you impose it upon yourself does it?”

    Yes, it does. I am shocked a libertarian would spout such. It makes a World of difference. You are one step away from Rouseau “Forcing people to be free”. One step. So punks or whatever go with a stereotypical look but they choosed/chose that look. They could have been New Romantics or whatever. They chose and still choose. It’s called human agency and that is baseline libertarianism. Without free-will we have nothing. Surely you get that? Now if that includes the right to dress (and distress) like a numptie then that is a small price to pay for freedom? Surely?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: