Lingualicious



[pic]

A French parliamentary committee has recommended a partial ban on women wearing Islamic face veils. So should there be a similar ban in the UK - and would it work?

Just across the sea in France, allowing a woman to cover her face in public places such as hospitals, government offices and on public transport could soon be banned. In a country where the separation of state and religion is enshrined in law, a parliamentary committee report ruled the veil was "contrary to the values of the French republic" France - which is home to five million Muslims - has a history of debating the full veil, with President Nicolas Sarkozy declaring it "not welcome" in 2010. The country banned Muslim headscarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols at state schools in 2004. Despite calls from some groups for a full or partial ban on veils, there is currently no ban on Islamic dress in the UK - although schools were allowed to set out their own dress code in 2007 after important court cases.

'Not British'

In January 2010, Schools Secretary Ed Balls said it was "not British" to tell people what to wear in the street. However Muslim journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown said she supported restrictions on wearing the face veil in key public spaces.

"This covering makes women invisible, invalidates their participatory rights and confirms them as evil temptresses.

"I feel the same anger when I see Jewish women in wigs, with their many children, living tightly proscribed lives," she writes.

She said progressive Muslims came out "daily" against the burka, which was an "un-Islamic custom".

"During the Hajj pilgrimage no woman covers her face. The burka makes women more, not less, conspicuous, and communication is unequal because one party hides all expression," she claimed.

'Mutual respect'

|[pic] |

However, Yvonne Ridley, a British journalist who converted to Islam after she was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, said the French decision was "driven by Islamophobia - not the freedom or liberties of women". She said she did not know anyone who had been forced to wear the niqab (which covers the face apart from the eyes) or the body-covering burka. Some Muslims chose to wear the niqab for religious reasons - because they believed it brought them closer to their faith - she said.

"Muslim women in Britain are more empowered than their sisters on the continent”

She said she understood why some people found the veil "unnerving", but insisted "everyone should have a choice".

Only a "tiny minority" of Muslims - a couple of thousand - wore the niqab in the UK, and "most of them were white Western converts who you could not say were quiet, suppressed women," she said.

"We can't allow legislation against the niqab. If we let it go the hijab will be next. Everyone should have choice. Where would it stop, hair dye, face piercing?", she said.

The private lives of teachers: Should we care?

[pic]

How much should we know about the teachers that spend more time with our children during the week than we do? Is the private life of a teacher relevant? Do parents have the right to know anything about their child’s teacher’s background, opinions, lifestyle or past?

I asked this question because recently, in the U.K., there have been two cases where teachers have been removed from their schools for activities outside of school hours in their private lives.

Of course parents have a right to know if a teacher has been accused of, or charged with, any form of violence or assault toward children. I would even argue that we have the right to know if the science teacher is a Creationist. But do we have the right to know what a teacher does with their free time?

I have a few teacher friends that are wonderful teachers but engage in activities on the weekends that are definitely not something they would share with their students. Does that make them bad teachers? I don’t think so. Not unless they describe their love life or weekend booze-up to the class on Monday.

There are those teachers that do bring their personal lives into the classroom. My friend’s daughter had a teacher that was going through a horrible divorce. I know this because he told the class. He was short-tempered and was taking things out on the kids so he apologized and told the class he was really upset because of his divorce, not because of them. I understand why he did it, but I don’t think he should have been so open with the kids.   

Teachers are human and they make mistakes in their personal lives. As long as it doesn’t interfere with their teaching, why is it my business? What do you think? Do you care what your child’s teacher does outside of the classroom if it’s not harming anyone?

Questions to think about.........

1. Do you think parents have a right to know anything other than how effective their children’s teachers are at teaching?

2. Is there anything that makes teaching different from other professions in terms of suitability for the job?

3. As students, how do you think teachers should act within school in terms of the following...............

........a.) Talking about their political views..........b.) Talking about their religious views

.........c.) Talking about their social life d.) Talking about their love life.

4. If you were a parent, would any of the following make you NOT want to have your child taught by a certain person.

a.) A teacher that smokes b.) A teacher that has been cautioned for driving offenses

c.) A teacher that holds different religious beliefs d.) A teacher that drinks alcohol

e.) A teacher that gets drunk on weekends f.) A teacher that is a member of a racist party

g.) A teacher that is divorced h.) A teacher that supports Man United

5. Do teachers have the right to refuse to teach students whose parents fit the criteria of any of the descriptions above?

SHOULD PARENTS BE ALLOWED TO SMACK THEIR CHILDREN?

[pic]

A. Children are protected by law from harsh punishment and violent abuse by parents and others.

Further laws to ban all physical punishment of children in the home would criminalise parents who judge that a smack or threatened smack on the body may be appropriate corrective punishment for times when the chid has misbehaved.

This may open stable, loving families to an unprecedented state of intrusion and could mean the imprisonment of responsible, caring parents.

’The Children are Unbeatable Alliance’ seeks to equate a smack with violent assault and consistently use words such as "hit" or "assault" when discussing parental smacking.

A corrective smack on the bottom from a responsible and loving parent is clearly different, both in degree and intention, from a fist in the face or blow on the chest or back. Most parents would resent this manipulation of language. It also trivialises serious child abuse.

Family Education Trust welcomes the DoH decision to respect parents' judgement on the appropriate disciplining of children. A number of prosecutions for parental smacking or restraint have been reported over the past year. These have caused great distress to the families involved, especially the children. They have also wasted the time and resources of courts and social services, as well as public money, all of which is urgently needed to help seriously abused children.

B. As we enter the 21st Century it is surely extraordinary that we are arguing over how much we can hit our children - should parents only be allowed to hit children as long as they don't leave bruising or cause injury to children's eyes or brain?

Should parents be stopped from using canes or belts but allowed to use their open hands?

Should the fact that the child is a boy or a girl make a difference to how much a child gets hit?

These kind of questions simply miss the whole point of how we should be treating our children. We should be treating them in ways that show that we respect them, that are effective in teaching them the difference between right and wrong and that help to reduce the level of violence in society rather than contributing to it. Give children the right messages about the use of violence. No one wants children to grow up in a violent society but, inside the very place where they should be safest, we teach them that hurting someone is the answer to problems. Hitting children achieves nothing.

1.) Which of the two opinions do you agree with and why?

2.) How much should parents be allowed to decide for themselves what is best for their children?

[pic]

Ah, look at all the lonely people.

Ah, look at all the lonely people.

Eleanor Rigby picks up the rice in the church where a wedding has been,

Lives in a dream.

Waits at the window, wearing a face she keeps in a jar by the door,

Who is it for?

All the lonely people, where do they all come from?

All the lonely people, where do they all belong?

Father McKenzie, writing the words of a sermon that no-one will hear,

No-one comes near

Look at him working, darning his socks in the night when there’s nobody there,

What does he care?

All the lonely people, where do they all come from?

All the lonely people, where do they all belong?

Ah, look at all the lonely people.

Ah, look at all the lonely people.

Eleanor Rigby died in the church and was buried along with her name.

Nobody came.

Father McKenzie, wiping the dirt from his hands as he walks from the grave.

No-one was saved.

All the lonely people, where do they all come from?

All the lonely people, where do they all belong?

1. What do you think this is about?

2.) What do you think these bits are talking about?

“wearing a face she keeps in a jar by the door”

“No-one was saved”

3. What kind of person is Eleanor Rigby?

4. What about Father Mckenzie?

5. What is the tone of this piece of writing(How does it make you feel)?

6. What do you think the writers wanted the people who read this to do?

[pic] [pic] [pic]

PRO EUTHANASIA

To me, the euthanasia question is simple. If someone wants to die, that is their business and no one has any right to prevent them, though they might force them to consider their decision for a time. Whether someone kills themselves, gets help in procuring the means to die, or help with the actual suicide does not matter. What counts is the fact they made the decision that life was intolerable, usually because of disease or pain. Nobody else can make that decision for them. Nobody else knows just how intense the pain is.

In a case when someone is comatose, and can’t express their wishes, then a living will should prevail. Failing that, a combination of law and a doctor’s prognosis should decide when to pull the plug. If you force someone to stay alive against their will, that is torture, a crime I consider more serious than murder.

Nobody wants anyone killed against their wishes. I am furious with idiots accusing pro-euthanasia organisatons of wanting to kill people who don’t want to die, especially the disabled or mentally retarded. I am in favour of freedom. I don’t approve of anyone who forces people to die or to stay alive.

We ask for the right to assistance to die when life becomes unbearable. We ask for the right to determine for ourselves what unbearable means. Since suffering is subjective, how can any one but the patient decide just how much suffering is too much? It is the arrogant to think you can make that decision for someone else. It is heartless to think you can make up a rule that says no amount of suffering is too much. If you are not the one doing the suffering, you have no right to enforce such a rule.

ANTI EUTHANASIA

So, euthanasia has come up in the news again. Whilst it is a sensitive issue, and each case will bring up different issues, I would almost always be opposed to any manner of euthanasia, and here's why:

1) I don't think any human has the right to purposefully end the life of another human being.

2) If we allow people to choose to end their lives when they think suitable then we are devaluing life to a mere commodity. Once we start down the lines of "if my quality of life is too low I may as well die" then we're on a slippery slope with a terrifying maw waiting at the bottom.

3) There is always a chance that a person may change their mind after stating/confirming the desire to be "terminated" (a hideous word), potentially after they have lost the ability to communicate. A very scary, if unlikely scenario.

4) People may come under pressure to end their lives if they feel they are a financial burden, or they may be persuaded that it would be the "right thing to do" and actually be killed against their wishes, though with their official consent. There have been cases abroad where very sick patients have been informed by the authorities that funding for their medication is not available - however the government would be willing to pay for their assisted suicide. This is horrible.

Topics to discuss

1.) What is Euthanasia? 2.) What people might want to end their own lives? 3.) How do you think doctors should be involved?

4.) Do you agree that people have the right to choose when they die? If yes/no why?

Should mobile phones be banned from schools?

Pupils are using their mobile phones to "bully" teachers, by secretly recording and filming them and sending the results to other phones or posting them on the internet.. Why are mobile phones necessary in schools - should pupils be banned from using them?

[pic] [pic]

Little brother is watching you. We happily put CCTV cameras in shopping centres, towns, and football grounds. Then, when the kids photograph teachers with their mobile phones, suddenly we get all defensive and start complaining. It's the 21st century. Children expect to be able to contact each other on moblies, just as adults do. Obviously if a phone rings in class it should be confiscated, but the things have "off" buttons. It isn't realistic to ban them, so we need a different social attitude to being caught on camera.

They should be banned whilst the pupils are in school but in this crazy country someone will jump up and down screaming about "human rights" and demand a hefty compensation claim.

As a former teacher I can see no need for mobile phones in school. Some pupils seem to think that talking on a mobile during lessons is necessary and not disruptive in any way, let alone bad-mannered. Hours of teacher time is wasted when phones are stolen from pupils. No one would deny a pupil the use of a phone in an emergency; after all we do care about the wellbeing of the students that we teach.

Mobile phones are not needed by 99 per cent of the "adults" who use them, never mind a bunch of brain-dead kids. Of course they should be banned from schools along with politically correct "child-centred" educational methods which let our kids turn into selfish, rude monsters.

My daughter's school has a clear, fair and enforceable policy on mobiles. None allowed in school and confiscated if found. Parents agree to this as they do to the uniform policy. This avoids all of the issues discussed in the article as well as ensuring the safety of pupils who can't then be mugged in the streets for their phone. There's no logical argument for having it any other way. Carey Gunn, London

As a parent, I would feel safer knowing that my daughter had access to a phone at all times. No-one knows who is lurking around the corner on the way home from school and my daughter may need to make the call that could save her life.

Topics to discuss

1. Why do students need mobile phones at school?

2. Should teachers have the right to take mobiles away ?

3. Are there any ways in which a mobile phone could be dangerous?

4. Why do you think some schools ban mobile phones completely?

5. How old should students be when they get their 1st mobile phone?

[pic] [pic] [pic]

SHOULD PARENTS TREAT GIRLS AND BOYS DIFFERENTLY?

I have often heard parents say that raising girls is harder. There is something about a girl that I think makes us want to be more protective. There is a special innocence about her that we want to see kept intact.

Don't get me wrong, though. Parents want to protect their boys as well but I think there is just an assumption that they will somehow be ok and not get into trouble even though statistics suggest that boys are 3 times more likely to end up in hospital during their teenage years. Girls seem to get more protection whether they need it or not. So my question is should girls be treated differently than boys?

Yesterday my daughter turned 13. This was the first year that she asked if boys could come to her birthday party. My immediate thought was, "Absolutely not." But before I gave a final answer, I told her I would think about it. Of course, this was after first asking which boys and why she wanted them to come.

Recently she has started to become friends with boys. They have gone from being yucky to being not so bad after all. She isn't interested in having a romantic relationship but just enjoys the friendship of a couple of them. While I was thinking about my answer, I went back three years ago to when my oldest son turned 13. He had girls at his party. His friends were boys and girls that he has grown up with in the church. I know them very well and it didn't seem like a big deal having them come over. So if my son was allowed to, my daughter should be able to.

Whereas my son spends his weekend miles away from the house, often without his mobile phone and with groups who I suspect may smoke and drink; my daughter rarely goes out anywhere apart from friends’ houses and is in constant mobile phone contact with me or my husband. It seems strange because my daughter is generally much more reliable and trustworthy than my son.

Although I decided to not treat her differently by allowing the boys to come, I will admit that I did treat her differently in another way. Three years ago when my son turned 13, I was near but kept busy doing my own thing. This time I did some sneaking around, peeking and eavesdropping. So I guess maybe deep inside I do think girls should be treated differently.

QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Do you think you are treated different from your brothers? If so, how?

2. Why do you think attitudes towards boys and girls are so different?

3. What sort of freedoms do you think teenagers deserve?

4. Do you think your attitudes will change if you become parents? Will attitudes change in the future?

47% of 14-year-olds 'are bullied' [pic]

Nearly half of 14-year-olds in England have experienced some sort of bullying, a study of 10,000 teenagers for the government suggests. Name calling and cyberbullying - where the victim faces threats and insults via mobile phones and the internet - were the most common forms. After these came being threatened with violence, being excluded by friends and facing real violence. The study did not say if the bullying had taken place once or more often. According to the long-term study for the Department for Children, Schools and Families, some 47% of 14-year-olds reported bullying. This dropped to 41% among 15-year-olds and 29% of 16-year-olds.

'Left out'

The most common type was name calling and cyberbullying, while the least common was being forced to hand over money or possessions. Those with a disability were more likely to face name calling and to be excluded from friendship groups than those without. Children with special educational needs, caring responsibilities or those having to spend some time in care were also more likely to be bullying victims. Overall girls were more likely to be bullied than boys at the age of 14 and 15. They were also more likely to face name calling and be excluded from friendship groups. Boys were more likely to have their money and possessions taken and to face violence. Those bullied at 14 and 15 had significantly lower results at GCSE - equivalent to two grades lower.

'Tell your parents'And bullying victims were also more likely to be "Neets" - not in education, employment or training. But interestingly the research found that those whose parents reported bullying were less likely to face it in the future. Young people who told their parents at 14 were almost twice as likely not to remain being bullied at 16 than those who did not. Children's Secretary Ed Balls called on parents to always report incidents of bullying to their child's school. The theme - tackling cyberbullying - uses the slogan "Stay Safe in Cyberspace".

On this issue, Mr Balls said: "Mobile phones or computer screens can be used to taunt and bully young people, which can have devastating consequences.

"I want parents to feel confident coming forward and reporting bullying incidents to schools, as we know this helps to stop bullying continuing."

1. Can somebody explain what cyberbullying is?

2. Why might cyberbullying be worse than other types of bullying?

3. Every year in school we are always told about the problems of bullying, why do you think it’s something that doesn’t end?

4. Why does bullying affect older students less?

5. What are the differences between the type of bullying suffered by girls and boys?

6. What is the Children’s secretary trying to do to help?

7. What could we do to help someone in the form being bullied?

[pic]

John Terry's future as captain of the English national team remains in doubt after recent reports he had an extramarital affair with the ex-girlfriend of England teammate Wayne Bridge.

Last week, the English High Court lifted a ban preventing the details of the alleged affair between Terry and Vanessa Perroncel, a French actress and model, from being published in the media. At the time of the affair, Terry and Bridge were teammates at English Premier League club Chelsea, and played alongside each other on England's national team. Terry married his long-term girlfriend, Toni Poole, in 2007, while Bridge and Perroncel split last year.

YES - JOHN TERRY SHOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP HIS PERSONAL LIFE PRIVATE

John Terry lives a public life so any news that can damage his reputation can actually ruin his career. Already, before all the details have been revealed of the affair, there are many people who say he should not continue to be captain of the England football team. To have this taken away from him due to reputation is appalling. The media should not be allowed to publish details that will have such a damaging effect. It is unfair that he suffer more for something that most people deal with privately. Terry has not broken the law by having an affair, he has simply offended a lot of people.

Also, it is not only John Terry's privacy that needs to be dealt with here; he has a family which contains children. Terry has a wife and 3 year old twins. It is not fair on them that their broken lives are splattered across the front pages of all the newspapers. They had no choice in the situation that John Terry has cruelly placed them in. So whilst we may not want to protect his privacy, the privacy of his children and his wife should be taken into consideration. Weighing all of their privacy against the media's right to make a profit, the injunction should have been upheld.

NO – NO PUBLIC PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO HIDE DETAILS OF HIS LIFE FROM PEOPLE WHO ADMIRE HIM

It is not merely details that will ruin his career, it is who he is. He should have thought about the consequences of his reputation before he had an affair. He only has himself to blame.

This argument could also be used by criminals regarding Sarah's Law. This is the law that allows parents access to the information of any local criminal. Whilst these criminals may claim right to privacy, the argument is that they committed a wrongful act, and they shall live with the consequences. They lose the right to argue about privacy.

John Terry was also named ‘Father of the Year 2009’ so he should now be exposed. To allow a public figure to be thought of in a high regard such as that of ‘father of the year’ when they have been having an affair is total hypocrisy. His acceptance speech of the public voted award contained the sentence “My family mean the world to me and receiving this award has made me feel extremely proud.” Given his tendency to lie not only to his wife, but also to the public, he should be shown to be that what he truly is. If he wishes to act all romantic and gushing in front of the crowds, let his dirty laundry be aired so everyone can see his true character.

1. What do you think of John Terry’s actions?

2. Do you think that the public have a right to know what goes on in celebrities’ lives?

3. What about the rights of John Terry’s family?

4. Do you think he should be allowed to continue to play for England?

Look at the photo below and discuss it with your group. Try to answer the following questions.

1. What is the photo’s message? 2.) Do you think it is a good way to put the point across?

3.) Who made the photo and why? 4.) How do you feel when you see the photo?

[pic]

Look at the photo below and discuss it with your group. Try to answer the following questions.

2. What is the photo’s message? 2.) Do you think it is a good way to put the point across?

3.) Who made the photo and why? 4.) How do you feel when you see the photo?

[pic]

Look at the photo below and discuss it with your group. Try to answer the following questions.

1. What is the photo’s message? 2.) Do you think it is a good way to put the point across?

3.) Who made the photo and why? 4.) How do you feel when you see the photo?

[pic]

Look at the photo below and discuss it with your group. Try to answer the following questions.

1. What is the photo’s message? 2.) Do you think it is a good way to put the point across?

3.) Who made the photo and why? 4.) How do you feel when you see the photo?

[pic]

Look at the photo below and discuss it with your group. Try to answer the following questions.

1. What is the photo’s message? 2.) Do you think it is a good way to put the point across?

3.) Who made the photo and why? 4.) How do you feel when you see the photo?

[pic] [pic]

Look at the photo below and discuss it with your group. Try to answer the following questions.

1. What is the photo’s message? 2.) Do you think it is a good way to put the point across?

3.) Who made the photo and why? 4.) How do you feel when you see the photo?

[pic]

-----------------------

Should the UK ban the Muslim face veil?

To smack or not to smack. The issue of whether parents should have the right to physically chastise their children or not has raised its head again with the release of a new Department of Health consultation document.

ELEANOR RIGBY

RIGHT TO PRIVACY or FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION?

Should John Terry be able to stop the newspapers printing details of his private life?

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download