Belgian committee votes for full Islamic veil ban
 

I understand why this would be an issue, but I think its a huge violation of personal freedom to tell another what they can/can't wear in public.

Again, it is not their place to "free" the women of a burden unless the women are asking for such help.

Relax, MTP it's part of a well tested, long term strategy. Next comes banning the religion, forbidding ownership of real estate, holding public office, speaking their native language, teaching reading and writing in that language, public assembly, voting, and so on.

The English did it to the Irish, The Germans to the Jews, Poles, Gypsies, et al. It goes on and on.

I don't know the answer all I can say is I can't stand intolerant people...
;)

It's a slippery slope.

:lol:

Just to play devils advocate here, but don't most western cultures require people (women included) to wear clothes in public? If you don't wear clothes you get punished for indecent exposure etc.

I guess there must be some line between not enough, and too much that I'm missing here.

Personally, I think anyone should be allowed to wear or not wear whatever they like.

Yes they do have public decency laws that don't allow nakedness in public. I think that is slightly a different issue (most people do not have nakedness as a requirement by their religion), but yes again, the public decency laws are a violation of personal freedom. I just think its less intrusive overall. Maybe I'm not as outraged by them because I'm used to them. Damn Puritans.

lol

Actually, it's more akin to the Kulturkampf policies of the late 19th century German Empire. Which was specifically aimed at Catholics and catholicism. The now famous effect of which was to strengthen catholicism and make catholics waay more hardcore.

I wonder how walking into a bank wearing a ski mask in the middle of the summer would be received.
Just sayin'

Just the be clear, it is NOT and requirement of their religion. It's a cultural requirement in certain tribes/sects.

But it is how women of those particular tribes/sects express their modesty, which very much is a religious matter.

I think it's ridiculous and utterly counter productive. The veil has become more and more symbolic of a moslem identity within the western secular world. Even amongst women whose mothers never wore one. Young moslem women are taking to the veil in droves, precisely because it is becoming so fraught and full of meaning.

If we actually wanted moslem women to stop wearing the veil we'd have been better off ('we' being the West) just fucking ignoring it.

It would be deemed suspicious. Rightly so. Nobody wears a ski mask in the day in Summer, unless they're skiing.

The two are not analogous.

How would it be seen if a woman walked into a bank wearing a snood, in the middle of winter? Or if an elderly lady walked into a bank wearing a hat with a veil? Hundred years ago it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow, because veiled hats were quite common. Go to a funeral and you still see them.

The whole thing is riduclous. It's grossly illiberal.

I have no problem with it.
It's just a signal.
"Dozens" of women affected?
Probably more naturists are affected by "decency" laws.

It's like the immigration advert the Dutch made which showed same sex couples embracing, which was supposedly offensive to Muslims. So what? Don't come here if you won't accept our culture.

I'm not racist, xenophobic or anti-Islam in any way. I worked and was friends with plenty of Muslim colleagues in Leicester. This law does not persecute in any way. It simply draws a line in tolerance. We do NOT accept female circumcism in this country. We do NOT accept multiple marriages. We are suspect about the veil. I'm not sure we should ban it, but if the rest of Europe goes that way I am happy to accept it.

I'm completely against it. Mainly because of the Kulturkampf effect. The weight of meaning which is being attached to the veil these days is ensuring that any moslem woman who wishes to express her Islamic identity will wear a veil. It is becoming less and less acceptable for moslem women to choose not to do so.

I heard a French woman on the radio a few years ago qwhen France was looking to ban the veil in schools. She said when she was young she fought for her right not to wear a veil. Now she fights for her daughter's right to wear it.

Aside from the more thought out and conscious decision to adopt the veil in public, made by liberated moslem women; what about the more traditional communities? In my town the moslem community is almost exclusively from Kashmir, and mostly from one village in particular. They are drawn from a very traditional, rural community. Many of the women are brides brought over from the old country and many do not speak English. Many wear veils outside; though some cover only part of their face. They do not take driving lessons, because it is improper for them to be out there amongst the men, and most driving instructors are male. They primarily keep to their own parts of the town.

I briefly volunteered at an ESOL class, to which benefits claimants were sent after 6 months of claiming, if they did not pass the language class. We had mainly moslem men, but a handful of local moslem women. They only ever spoke up, or answered questions when they were in a separate room from the men. They rarely made eyecontact particularly if the men were around.

At a local community centre in the Asian area, a small group of moslem women set up a language class/club for other Asian women. It was very popular, lots of the local women attended. The local Imam was not happy. The men systematically undermined that group and many prevented their wives from attended. It eventually folded.

If we were to ban the veil; it would not create a liberal environment for those wives. If wearing a veil outside becomes illegal, their response will not be to go out without the veil,. it will be to not go out at all. We would effectively shove those women into an even tighter, culturally enforced purdah.

Their daughters meanwhile will end up either rebelling against their community, and losing their cultural moorings when the male-dominated culture closes the door on them; or they will rebel against us and become resolutely and exclusively moslem and anti-western.

Utterly counter productive.

Balderdash, it's how they convince the men that control them, of their modesty... which is cultural. :yesnod:

I thought this was going to be about waffles.

Uh, whats a snood?
I think the practice of wearing them is ridiculous. But hey, thats just me. Should we legislate it away? Whatever. I have more important things to worry about.

Not much...what's snood with you? :lol2:

I don't think they should be legislated against, but on a personal level, I feel uncomfortable when I can't see someone's face.

On a side note, it'd be frigging hard to fit glasses to someone in that get-up.

And what's going on underneath all that cloth?

masturbation. Or, as limey would have it - "haggis" :)

Don't turn my haggis into a ho. :lol:

They could wear pants, if they'd just emprace the ben-wa balls

Are these woman covering there faces because of choice or because of sexist social forces? Fun argument. Kinda of like the question of when should a fetus be granted human rights.

Dana, the [language class] scenario you posted is one of the reasons I would be happy if the veil was outlawed.

You know I'm not anti-Islam OR anti-immigration, but I have to ask what these small village wives are doing for our country? I'm sure their husbands work very hard and benefit us financially. But the fact they hold views so very different than our own regarding 50% of the population, and import wives brought up with the same view is not diversity, it is perversity. We do not need to encourage men to view women this way. Trust me, I saw plenty of pub widows when working as a barmaid to realise that many white British working class men like their wives barefoot and pregnant. And that's not forgetting the middle class yummy mummies and the upper class breeding machines.

I'm not for banning the veil in this country. But I would not cry "civil liberties!" if it was. If the main argument against it is that women will be traopped in their homes without a veil, or intimidated off the streets, I think there is more important work that needs to be done. British muslim women, whether by birth or immigration should never have to cower behind curtains, whether it's in their living rooms or on their face.

Chika, i know damn well you aren't racist :P

I don't think it's the main reason. My main reason to be against such a law is that it is counter productive in many ways.

Away from the village mentality, and looking at second and third generation, middle-class moslem girls attending university and looking for careers in business, law, or science, seem to be adopting the veil more and more. It has become a way to express their cultural and religious identity, their individual right to follow their faith. It has become ever more loaded with symbolism as time has gone on. part of the reason for that is that we have, as a culture, afforded it that level of symbolic meaning. It has become a totem on both sides of the argument. Banning it would give it almost mythical status (imo) amongst young, politically aware, culturally sensitive moslem women. Its demise in law would underline any sense of alienation, betrayal and grievance they may feel towards us, the rest of their countrymen and women, who have allowed their cultural expression to be dismissed and denied.

I also think it is wrong. I think those girls at university, who are making choices about the veil, have every right to forge their version of British culture. And for their version to be a part of the whole. The veil doesn't physically harm or endanger anybody. It's a piece of material over the face. What it means, and why it is worn differs depending on who is wearing it. At its heart it's usually worn for reasons i personally find repellent. But it is patently not the same as female circumcision. We have a duty to ensure children are safe from harm; female circumcision is harmful. The veil, in and of itself is not harmful. The cultural baggage attached to it and underlying the reasons for wearing it are, in my opinion, harmful: but none of that will go away if we remove the cloth. It is a stab at something we, the majority, find uncomfortable and disquieting. It serves no useful purpose to my mind.

All things being equal - I would hire one without over one with, but I'm a classhole.

You always make a good point babba.
I don't agree though.

In fact I was thinking about it on my way back from the shops today. And painting myself a fruitloop by trying some sentences out loud. In the end I decided you have an intelligent and informed point of view that I simply don't agree with.

But in good news terms, my 18 yo Aussie cousin is rabid with jealousy that we're going to see JB in panto ;)

PS, sorry Classic, I wasn't dismissing you.
PPS (!) no man has ever been corrupted by the sight of my face, or by a glimpse of my hair. As far as I know.

I watched "30 Days" episode last night about a Christian guy living with a Muslim family for 30 days. There were some good points that each side made about personal and group responsibility.

One point the Muslims made was why should they apologize for the actions of fringe lunatic terrorists who do not represent them any more than a Christian should apologize for the actions of a fringe lunatic that bombs an abortion clinic?

The Christian guy countered with apologizing for the same thing. Later in the episode he was defending Muslims as not all being terrorists by citing Timothy McVeigh as a terrorist who wasn't a Muslim. (all terrorists are Muslim ≠ all Muslims are terrorists)

I admit it put a face to the huge sweeping generalization: Muslim.

Dana has basically made all my points for me.
This sort of law is just going to drive moderates to the fundamental side and make the fundamentals hate the west more. Make them more intent on proving their commitment to their faith.
In addition to that: now the women who had to wear the full burka in public, may not be allowed out in public since they cannot properly cover (according to their custom/religion.) So, it can cause these women to be more isolated and forced to cower in their own homes. If we are truly worried about their personal freedoms, then laws should be made that could cause them to be isolated from society and HELP.
If they want help, the need the means to reach out for it, not laws that force "help" down their throats. I'm sure their men do plenty of forcing.

Any bank robber that wants to wear a mask should be permitted to do so.

Have bank robberies increased with the veiled population?

Although I think business and govt buildings should be allowed to have a 'face must be visible policy' if they feel they need to for security, an outright ban doesn't seem right. Seems like it's skirting the real issue of immigration, which is less pc.

My first thought would be guys dressing up as women to better hide all their bombs, but! it is against their religion to dress as women, whereas, blowing themselves and others is apparently peachy.

As for visible face, don't we have retinal scanning technology in place? can't we have a big fat database of retinas?

First ban masks. Now ban sunglasses. Who knows. Will a ban on gloves be next?

This is about privacy. Nobody need know I have no basic health care and no dentist. Those are my black teeth. No one else need see them. My religion also says to hide any communicable disease I might be carrying. It is my right. After all, I have the right to impose my religious beliefs on anyone else.

I just don't like religion in general; so following extreme practices in the name of religion; legislating against those practices in the name of national safety . . . it's all bad.

I disagree with a full ban because that kind of thing does impinge on freedom and rights and for the backlash affect described. I do agree that common sense and security concerns say that faces should be visible in certain situations.

Most demonstrative Muslim women around here (this is not in Belgium, of course) wear a close fitting head wrap that covers their hair and neck, but leaves the face visible. Alternatively, I see other women who must be Amish or fundamentalist Christian wearing less occlusive headscarfs or kerchiefs, and long, covering dresses. I have no problem with their right to wear this kind of garb; but I would expect the same courtesy in return.

The thing that bothers me the most about veiling or "modesty" garments for women is that it is an extreme form of control of women, whether they like to admit it or not. These are patriarchal religions where the men jealously guard their power and barely admit that women are people. For all the young passionate women's protestations about identity and faith, to me they are merely buying in to this second class citizen belief system.

And that I do have a problem with. Did I mention I don't like religion? The misery and turmoil it causes just seem neverending.

Religious malpractice is what causes the misery. Those who tell you otherwise are trying to spread their own misery to you.

You could point to the "institution syndrome," or to the will of some eligible gallowsbirds to do just plain evil, pretending all the while that it is otherwise, if you want a detailed explanation. And were it not religion, it would be some other bad excuse.

I cling to my guns not from bitterness, but from an understanding that some kinds of life are improved with sudden death.

bumpity boo - - -
France has first 'burka rage' incident
Link
Maybe this should be in the weird news thread.
We all knew it had to start somewhere. Both sides will try to score points with this incident.

So the old bag of an attorney insults the woman wearing a burkha....and subsequently rips its off.

You see points on both sides here for the rage expressed on one side?

Yup. Your inability to displays your bias. Well that and the "Old bag" comment.

Who provoked the incident.

Who initiated the name calling in the incident?

Who ripped the burkha off the woman?

The rage was all on one side....unless I missed something.

And you have the balls to talk about bias? ("ALL of the attorneys, local elected officials, police chiefs that are opposed to the AZ bill are acting out of political or financial interests"...."government data is biased")

Were you there? have you reviewed the tapes? Did you interview the witnesses? All types of questions you've brought up in the past.

Try this - STFU.
Who called the atty an "old bag"?
You did - no go fuck off. The last few days were most pleasant without your argumentative assholiness.

I posed what I thought were reasonable questions in response to your links.

I did not disrespect you in any recent post.

Shame you cant say the same.

Lets look at it again.

Woman A walks into a store minding her own business.

Woman B makes "snide remarks about her black burka"

Woman B is said to have "likened the Muslim woman to Belphegor, a horror demon character well known to French TV viewers."

An argument ensues.

Woman B, the older woman is said "to have ripped the other woman's veil off."

How would you characterize Woman B?

What did Woman A do wrong?

And how is any of what I posted a personal attack on you?

Did I tell you "go fuck off" or suggest your posts are "argumentative assholiness."

All alleged... blah blah blah.
1) I never said you made a personal attack against me.
2) nor do I care if you did or not. I'm tired of doing this with you.

I'm not tired at all of challenging you or anyone. Its still fun to me. :)

And I will to try to be respectful of others here and not engage in name calling of other posters...even when attacked.

IMO, ts unfortunate that you are not willing to do the same.

It has become apparent to me and just about everyone else that nothing productive comes from our "exchanges." Maybe you haven't noticed, but I am trying NOT to interact with you. Perhaps you could do the same.

The giant foam finger points straight at you, as a result of this last exchange.

Redux decided to change his tack, after the brouhaha. Perhaps you could do the same.

So now you are suggessting that I not respond to any of your links...and not offer my own opinion or perspective?

Even if I do so in a manner that was not disrespectful to you...but which you characterized as "argumentative assholiness"?

So, in effect, you want to chose who should and should not respond to your links?

Sorry, that doesnt work for me. I will participate in any discussion I chose.

.

http://britandgrit.com/wp-content/up...miller_kkk.jpg

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...II_468x484.jpg

um...while I'm certainly no fan of the Pope - I CAN most def. see his FACE.


So - how..?

Da pope, he's a' hidin' a weapon of mass destruction under his lid.

does he really wear Gucci shoes?

Does he get them comped from Gucci?

Here's is my own opinion as a French, living in France where I can see women wearing either 'niqab' or 'burkas'.

What I saw these last weeks is that, as the goverment is trying to find its way to vote a law against these garnments, is that all newsmedia show an increasing volume of incidents.

I can't understand the need for that law as there's already one that forbids anyone to circulate with his/her face masked. unless it is tolerated for security/medical purpose. (biker helmet/surgeon masks).

In my opinion, some of those incidents are provocation on the part of some radical muslims, but also sheer stupidity on the part of other people.

There were other incidents than the one reported here. For example, some weeks ago, a woman wearing the 'niqab' was stopped by the police because they thought (and I share their opinion) that the veil was impairing her vision. Then her 'husband' tried to paint them as racists. Next thing we knew, the Minister of Interior was trying to take away the husband's French nationality on the grounds of polygamy.

In this one incident, what I see is provocation from the husband who as it appears has no wife but four 'mistresses' and sheer stupidity from the Minister.

As a politician, he should act, not react.

As for the garnments, I don't like them and as far as I understand the Koran, it's not a requirement of the muslim faith. The requirement comes from tribal minorities.

It seems that today a lot of people have forgotten the old saying "When in Rome...".

If I were a woman going to a muslim country, I would have to cover my head with either a 'niquab', a 'burka' or simply a veil depending on the country because it is required by law. So if you are a foreigner coming to France, do as the French. I wont ask you to renege your core beliefs, but if you can't accept to abide by our laws : STAY AT HOME!

Probably because old sayings have very little to do with human rights, regardless of your feelings on this particular subject. :right:

To that I say, adamantly and with conviction: "Out with the old and in with the new."

:lol:

Good post GM - The rub is when they are Muslims who are French citizens - no?

You can't teach an old dog new tricks!

I was just trying to argument my opinion without letting my temper take over as in "act don't react".

I'll say only one more thing on that subject and then I'll quit the thread.

Yes, I am a racist : I hate stupid.

As long as you consider that I'm entitled to my opinions and recognize that I let you have the same right, you can be whatever you want, blue as a smurf, green as a martian or even tatooed purple from head to toes.

I've worked with people from all over the planet, Morocans, Aussies, Germans, USA, Canadians, Chileans, Iran, Chinese,... And it always went well, because we had a common purpose : the project we were working on.

Yes, there were frictions but nothing we couldn't iron out by discussing the problem.

All of them agreed with me that stupidity is the most common illness around the world.

I read or heard somewhere recently that the current ultra conservatism stems from the 1950's or so, old Muslim guys will lament the times when they were young when women didn't have to cover up, it's just a fad.:(

That would make sense. Thats about the time when very conservative Muslims started to gain power in the Middle East. I believe, in some regions at least, it was a lot more secular before then.

Agreed, and "No Sense of Humor" is the second. An awful lot of problems would never arise if people knew how to laugh at themselves.