Reply With QuoteIn practice, it would appear that in France, hardly anyone wears burkhas anyway, so it's not clear if a law would really affect many people.
Thanks Matt, this is where I hoped to go with it.
In practice, it would appear that in France, hardly anyone wears burkhas anyway, so it's not clear if a law would really affect many people.
France forces girls how to dress.
Suppression of women's rights in modern secular
Europe shows no sign of ending.
Welcome to the 21st Century.
Oops typo. There. fixed it for you.Originally Posted by rayback
'Croydon' Bob Newman. The ladies call him "Thrush" - as he's an irritating cunt.
Well, thank Allah that we have Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc to teach us the enlightened way to treat women.
Didn't France lead the way a few years (decades?) back in trying to ban turbans, in schools in particular?
Raise money for Robert and Susan Lancaster:
Fundraising for Robert Lancaster
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-...lamic_Garments
Would a business like a Travel Agent be allowed to ban people from their premises who had their face covered in any way?Police are hunting burkha wearing bandits who have struck three times in the last two months.
Two police forces are investigating three robberies which have been carried out recently by men dressed in the Islamic garment.
Maybe a sign saying "Please remove your motorcycle helmet or any other face-covering before entry"
Re: Sarkozy out to ban burkas in France
I bloody hope he was targeting muslims. The alternative is much worse.
The jilbab and more so the burhka have transformed from a cultural custom in the middle east to a badge of Islam world wide. Whilst the quran tells women to be modest, it says nothing explicit about covering the hair or face. There is nothing exculsingly Islamic about the Jillbab. Any image of the Blessed Virgin mary or a catholic nun should confirm this. It's simply a customary dress from the middle east.
Nor should it be imagined that covering the hair or face preculdes modesty. Whether it's the carefully arranged diaphomopnous patterned scarf favoured by Benezir Bhuto, or Jemima Khan (which does more to highlight than hide their appearance) or the laboriously tightly pinned jilbab of the exceedingly concious muslim woman (which ensures that not the slightest wisp of hair may be seen) both are ways of putting effort into one's appearance to make a statement. The lack of modesty in such a statement is betrayed by a letter writer in today's Metro who proclaimed her pride in wearing a burka.
Which of the follwing displays modesty -
or this
But how in all seriousness are muslim women to be banned from hiding thier face.
Will we also ahve to ban this.
and this
and this
and most impartantly this.
Yes that's right. If this isn't targetted as muslims, lilke it damn well ought to be then it's a way of leveraging xenophobia to keep tabs of anarchists through big brother's facial recognition software.
The law of the excluded middle allows for no other explanation.Don't know if I've done the right thing by bumping this but anyway...
I don't understand the point being made in these posts. Are you suggesting that the burkha should be banned but the other face coverings pictured should be allowed?
I'm not suggesting that the burqua should be (have been) banned. Whilst I personally wouldn't wear one for more reasons than just being a male and a dhimmi, I am suggesting that there are needs to allow face covering beyond that of religious tolerance.
The justification being given for banning the burqua - that of needing to identify all people at all times is to me even more chilling than religious intolerance. I oppose religious intolerance, I oppose the erosion of civil liberties even more.
OK, thanks. Understood and agreed.
My position is that I find it difficult to justify the banning of the Burkha for any other reason than security - therefore it should not be banned.
I don't see much wrong with it anyway - at least not in the street.
Several Muslim women are on record as saying that by no means all veil wearers do so because of oppression by men or anybody else.
I believe that one should be able to wear whatever style you like having paid due regard to decency and safety.
In places where security is an issue however everything changes.
Everywhere where one would not be allowed to wear one of the face coverings pictured, the burkha should also be disallowed.
This would include (but not be limited to) : Banks, shops in fact anywhere where amounts of money are held, schools, outside of schools, universities, council offices in fact all public offices, churches, trains, stations, buses, bus stations, aeroplanes, airports, ships, cinemas, theatres, hospitals, taxis, public toilets, swimming pools, pubs, hotels, restaurants.
There are probably many more.
Of course it would make it next to impossible to wear the damn things at all...
As a matter of interest this is a picture of a Roman Catholic parade in a town near here.
I guess there's also the issue, if mask-wearing is allowed as a matter of choice, of how other people are required (or allowed) to react to someone 'making a statement' by wearing a mask, as many women seem to be claiming to do when interviewed.
If I interpret someone's statement as being that they don't trust men (including me) to control their baser urges, should I be allowed to be sufficiently offended by that to choose not to interact with them, without being accused of racism or religious discrimination?
Even if I'm providing a service to the public, as part of a private enterprise, or even the state?
If people choose to be masked when it clearly isn't a religious requirement (as if that should make any difference anyway), to what extent are they allowed to specify the responses other people should be permitted to give to that choice?
part of the case for face coverings....
(of course I'm biased...)
Fabricati diem
There's still a valid question to ask how people should be permitted to choose to react to other people wearing masks.
If I choose to wear a mask to a demonstration beacuse I think (or at least I'd like to believe) I'm important enough for someone to try and identify, do I have a right to expect to be served in shops while wearing it, or allowed to board a bus with an Oyster card while wearing it?
Do I have to put up with other people's reactions to my choice as long as those reactions are not unlawful (violence, etc), or can I legally demand that they treat me exactly as if I wasn't wearing it?
Even in a society where people are technically equal, what kind of personal choices should be defended by law not merely as choices that society isn't allowed to prevent, but as choices that other people are legally required to be blind to?
This subject was discussed on a show here recently, quite interesting. Here is the link to the transcript:
http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episo...311#transcript
One comment that got my intersest was this:
I think some younger muslims may wear the veil as a type of rebellion against society, like leather and tattoos for Arabs.they have chosen to do it, so in this context the burqa or the veil is increasingly an assertion of individual identity. Now, this is actually a very modern trend, this is not it’s original purpose, it is very much a communal garment, but now increasingly we see young Muslims wearing it as an assertion of identity and that is very western, it is a very western thing.
Worst signature ever.
In which case, how much can they reasonably complain if society decides it doesn't like it?
Also, when it comes to rebelling against society, if someone is from a relatively recent immigrant community, they may get a rather different reaction from some people than someone more indigenous would get.
While I might still have some sympathy for them if the reaction is particularly unpleasant, if a reaction is what they set out to provoke, my sympathy wouldn't be boundless.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks