French burka ban looms
For several months a parliamentary commission in France has been investigating whether the burka or the niqab (the full veil) should be banned. They are due to report next Tuesday, 26 January. It is now clear that they will say that the burka "should be prohibited on the territory of the Republic".
In an interview with today's Le Figaro, the president of the commission, Andre Gerin, said that "the ban on the burka will be absolute" in public places.
Now this will have the force of an opinion, but it will be the first step towards putting a law in place. A great many deputies in the parliament clearly want this to be followed by a law. Nothing will happen quickly and certainly not before the French regional elections in March. There will also be an intense debate as to what the legislation should include and how to avoid it clashing with human rights laws.
I spoke with Jean-Francois Cope, the head of the parliamentary group for the UMP (the governing party) and he said that this was mostly about women's rights. "We think in our country", he told me, "that the face is a way of recognising and respecting each other". The veil, he went on, isn't the point. It is the covering of the face that we object to.
Now Mr Cope has already talked of fining those who break the law. Others like Xavier Bertrand have gone further in suggesting niqab wearers should not acquire French nationality. In his view the full veil is "simply a prison for women who wear it".
The deputies, who support the ban, say that many Muslims confirm that nothing in Islam requires women to wear the full veil. Only about 1900 women in France wear it.
It is difficult to isolate where this push for banning the burka comes from. Mr Cope said it had the support of 74% of French people. What people say is that as Muslims have become more visible across Europe, there is a concern that they are pushing a separate identity that would lead to parallel, not integrated, communities.
One academic I spoke to said that liberals had not expected, in backing multiculturalism, that newcomers would arrive and live apart from the society they had joined. President Sarkozy has spoken of "this feeling of sharing less and less a common culture, a common imagination and a common morality". In his view, becoming French means "adhering to a form of civilisation, values and behaviour".
Tomorrow I will write on the view from behind the niqab and how women who wear it may react to legislation if it comes.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~48~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Amazing ; common sense from the French.
Complain about this comment
This is from last week The Economist :
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15270861
And it goes again to the issue of whether Mr Hewitt is actually investigating his entries, or just rehashing stories (themselves rehashed) from others.
Best regards,
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I think it's quite rational that people in, say, the teaching profession should be banned from wearing a burka. It seems to me a reasonable condition of a contract of employment that a teacher should dress in a manner that doesn’t frighten the children. But a total and absolute ban is going too far, and would probably be unenforceable. In the last couple of weeks I've been walking around the snowy streets of southern England completely covered with little more than a pair of eyes exposed to the wind. Who's to say I'm not wearing a burka underneath? Would the ban only apply to Muslim women or would it apply to 6'5'' white males as well?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Would the ban only apply to Muslim women or would it apply to 6'5'' white males as well?"
From the Economist a quote by Jean-François Copé, parliamentary leader of the ruling UMP party:
"nobody, in places open to the public or on streets, may wear an outfit or an accessory whose effect is to hide the face"
Complain about this comment
Does this mean bank robbers will not be allowed to wear balaclavas? It could also finish the French ski resorts.
It might be well intentioned(?), but it cannot be applied to all public places. For public employees and a lot of specific situations requiring identification, it makes sense.
Let's concentrate on banning smoking in public places first....
Complain about this comment
In his view the full veil is "simply a prison for women who wear it".
So in order to free the prisoner, we'll fine her and deny her our nationality. That's logical.
"nobody, in places open to the public or on streets, may wear an outfit or an accessory whose effect is to hide the face"
So motorcycle helmets are illegal now?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"So motorcycle helmets are illegal now?"
This is a draft law and has various provisions for street festivals, etc....I assume those provisions include motorcycle helmets. I have a feeling it will be somewhat unwieldy however or applied on a...erm...selective basis. :)
Complain about this comment
This is unfortunate but necessary. Western Europe has very few taboos, but covering your face in public is one of them. Our culture must be respected on this important point. Face-covering expresses hostility, prevents social cohesion and aids crime. And it's not a religious requirement -- I'd never seen it before 9/11, despite living in an area with a large Muslim population.
The fact that we don't mind people wearing scarves over their faces in cold weather simply backs the point that our expectations are reasonable, not some nutty dogma.
The French love their Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité and they've had enough of it being abused. We in Britain, on the other hand, pride ourselves on our tolerance and respect for other cultures. So we're a long way behind the French in standing up for our own civilisation.
I'd be much happier if people behaved reasonably without laws being passed, but the experience of the past 10 or 20 years is that the more we give in to Islamists, the more they demand. This law will probably be difficult to enforce, but you have to start somewhere, and if we had said "Enough is enough" long ago we wouldn't be in this position now.
And to answer the predictable cries of 'racism' comes the predictable answer: Islamism is an ideology, not a race. If it was only opposed by racists, they would be equally hostile to Hindus and Sikhs.
Complain about this comment
Gavin wrote "It is difficult to isolate where this push for banning the burka comes from.... liberals had not expected ...."
What the French call liberty would not go by that name in the English-speaking world. This illiberal ban on the burqua has nothing to do with women's rights or a separation between church and state, and everything to do with the expulsion of foreign influence by pseudo-democratic means. And thus it ever was in France. All the cherished values of the French republic, including what they call liberty and secularism, are really disguised forms of nationalism. And that is what Jean-Francois Cope and Xavier Bertrand are trying to disguise here.
--------
"Roman Gaul had so thoroughly adopted the ideas of absolute authority and undistinguished equality during the five centuries between Caesar and Clovis, that the people could never be reconciled to the new system (introduced by the invading Franks). Feudalism remained a foreign importation, and the feudal aristocracy an alien race, and the common people of France sought protection against both in the Roman jurisprudence and the power of the crown. The development of absolute monarchy by the help of democracy is the one constant character of French history. The royal power . . . became more popular as it grew more absolute; while the suppression of aristocracy . . was so particularly the object of the nation, that it was more energetically accomplished after the fall of the throne. . . All those things which constitute the peculiar character of the French Revolution; the demand for equality, the hatred of nobility and feudalism, and of the Church which was connected with them, ... the breach with tradition, and the substitution of an ideal system for everything that had proceeded from the mixture and mutual action of the races; all these exhibit the common type of a reaction against the effects of the Frankish invasion. The hatred of royalty was less than the hatred of aristocracy; privileges were more detested than tyranny; and the king perished because of the origin of his authority rather than because of its abuse. Monarchy unconnected with aristocracy became popular in France, even when most uncontrolled; whilst the attempt to reconstitute the throne, and to limit and fence it with its peers, broke down, because the old Teutonic elements on which it relied . . . were no longer tolerated. The substance of the ideas of 1789 is not the limitation of the sovereign power, but the abrogation of intermediate powers.
These powers, and the classes which enjoyed them, come in Latin Europe from a barbarian origin; and the movement which calls itself liberal is essentially national. If liberty were its object . . . its model would be England. But its object is equality; and it seeks, like France in 1789, to cast out the elements of inequality which were introduced by the Teutonic race." (Lord Acton, 1862)
Complain about this comment
The burka is a form of hate speech against women. It should be banned.
The girls and women who wear it are making a public statement about their belief that being born without male sexual organs places a person on a different footing in the world -- a footing of isolation, apartness (apartheid), inferiority and restricted contact.
There do exist severe climate conditions which make covering up much of one's face sensible, for both men and women: extreme winter weather, a driving downpour, a tornado, dust storms. I can see anyone wanting to cover up their nose & mouth in conditions such as currently apply to Haiti, or on an intense work-site. Those are obvious logical exceptions.
Women who insist on strict observance in public of ancient religious laws made up by very old men to limit the freedom and independence of women, as well as -- crucially -- their capacity to decide For Themselves what other people they associate with, and in what manner, are actively subverting the most sacred principles of the Constitutions of every single Western nation.
The UN Charter enshrines the rights of girls, women and everyone else in the International Declaration on Human Rights. However you might feel about the UN at various moments, the fact is that many of its member states from the Islamic world benefit greatly from its existence. But why are they not called to account by the other members for their persistent failure to live up to their UN-mandated obligations to protect the most basic rights of the females who dwell within their borders?
Every single powerful man out there, with the exception of a few looney-tunes such as Khamenei (whose actual 'power' is limited & ebbing) knows deep down that girls & women deserve a great deal more freedom than most of us (numerically) currently possess. An overwhelming majority of the men in this world do actually approve of greater freedom for women, if only so that they can get closer to us with fewer obstacles in the way. So why does it take so long to accomplish what is obviously the right thing?
How many cloth merchants can there be? And how can such a small group dictate to the rest of us?
Complain about this comment
If I entered a bank or show in a crash helmet they would be quite correctly ask me to remove it. Our identity is our face (mainly) - the hiding of the face has throughout history been reserved to robbers or other non-people.
If people want to appear in public in any form of balaclava that is sometimes fine, but where identity and personal interrelationship is required it is reasonable to expect people to remove their mask. Look , for example for the football mascot or the pantomime cow - quite acceptable in the right content, but not where dealing with others is concerned or in public. In private or at worship a full veil may be fine, but not in public where others could be/can be alarmed - it is a matter of common courtesy not to alarm others.
Complain about this comment
Good for France. It is very important to see the face of a person, doctor, nurse, teacher etc. Motorcycle helmets may not be worn in banks, nor Balalavas. This type of clothing creates an unpleasant division in Europe.
Complain about this comment
While I feel that in a western society, women should not have to cover their faces, and indeed, as it is our culture to be recognised by our face, I worry about what would happen to these women if a full face veil ban was introduced. Having lived in an Arabic Islamic country, and having spoken to women on the subject of covering up, many of them feel secure behind the burka. If they are the wives or daughters of very religious or traditional men, in Europe for work, I could imagine that if the law required them to show their faces, they would not be permitted to leave the house. Indeed, this is sadly the case for my neighbour, whom is only allowed to leave the house when her husband is with her, and certainly not dressed as a Western woman. I think it's a much more complex and delicate issue than simply saying: we are Europe, it's not allowed. I expect that the debate will continue for quite some time yet.
Complain about this comment
"nobody, in places open to the public or on streets, may wear an outfit or an accessory whose effect is to hide the face"
THIS STATEMENT MEANS ONE SHOULD NOT WEAR MASKS TO PROTECT ONE FROM DISEASES EG.SWINE FLU
Complain about this comment
i can only hope that other countries see the sense in following france's intentions in canada we seem so slow and feel that any move to integrate immigrants into "canadian culture" is a no no when surely all immigrants as i am too come to a new country for improved living conditions and standards of life the burka etc does keep people apart and creates animosities between us
Complain about this comment
All this could be avoided if certain elements of Muslim community were willing to abide by rule 7.
Rule 7: Don't take the pi**
Complain about this comment
In respect to the comments about motorcycle helmets and cold weather protection. These can be removed easily if necessary, while with the Burka / niqab any attempt to have it removed in a public place will result in trouble.
I am a motorcyclist, and until recently traveled back to my native England via the Channel Tunnel. Everything goes well until I get to UK Immigration - I have to remove helmet, or my wife (a Dutch National) is faced with questions why she is going to England, how long she will stay etc. In short we are treated as a member of the criminal fraternity because mode of transport or nationality. When I leave the UK, there never is any problem from the French Immigration.
A Burka ban will be good for most people the only ones who will complain are the radicals. Let them have a ticket to where they can wear a burka as long as they like!
Complain about this comment
I think the ban is a good idea and should be easily workable. As has already been pointed out it isn't so much as a ban, but wanting a level playing field. Turn up in a bank, cinema, airport wearing a ninja mask and refuse to remove it. It won't be long before security are having a word and if still refused would call the police. Just think what would happen if 20 burly blokes turned up at Heathrow all wearing masks, maybe they should to prove the point.
Yet completely covered women (can only presume they are women) wearing the burka are free to wander about in any place they feel fit, nobody has the you know whats to ask the obvious for them to show their face or leave. It's about time that the country told these women in no uncertain terms that it isn't acceptable.
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure about this topic, but my gut instinct tells that it is wrong to ban burkas because we are interfering with personal freedoms of the people. If somebody beliefs that he or she should cover their faces for what ever reason, they should be allowed to do so. Then there is freedom of religion aspect in here, while I believe that many woman wearing burka do so against their own wishes, I do also believe that some may do it for voluntarily reasons and by denying them the right to wear burka we are denying their religious freedom.
Then again, there are many things in our societies that are denied. You can't appear nude in public. You can't use religion and faith as an excuse for braking a law. It is a good question on where the line should be drawn, but in this case I think the freedom to wear burka or any other clothing should go first.
And of course, denying right to wear burka is just band-aid to the problem. If we are minorities that are not willing to join our societies, for what ever reason, we should work with these reasons, not on what these reasons produce. For example I think that we have made quite a bad job on assimilating immigrants, there has been lack of many things: teaching of native language, re-education, letting ghettos to form, not intervening social-economic problems right away, etc.. I think we should work more with these topics.
Complain about this comment
As far as I know Islam does not require a women to cover her face. If it is true than I would encourage Muslim women to not cover their face but observe the full code of Hijab.
Complain about this comment
MariaAshot
Re #13
Well written, balanced 'west' female perspective and one I find no problem with except...
It would be a very difficult Law to apply in the UK where the 'secular' State does not have the same historic political input (i.e. no 1789). E.g. There's a 'polite notice' as opposed to 'police' one asking bikers not to wear Crash Helmets entering Banks etc., but no such actual Law. On the other hand UK Law gives dispensation to Sikhs not to wear crash helmets!
Cannot see banning Burkas/Jilbabs crossing the channel anytime soon: So, will French Muslim women who favour their use put them on as they get off the ferry at Dover and vice versa!?
Complain about this comment
I appreciate Mrsgerrard1's point that being allowed out in a niqab is better than not being allowed out at all. In male-supremacist tyrannies, women face those miserable options.
But that's not a reason to say we should allow the same in Europe! It's a reason for us to do the opposite -- making it very clear that imprisoning women is unacceptable behaviour, whether it's done under lock and key or by tacit intimidation. Men who bully their families to make themselves feel big are contemptible. And that's what this is, using religion as an excuse.
Europe hasn't solved the problem of domestic violence. The last thing we want is an excuse for more and different kinds. It's an outrage that Mrsgerrard1's neighbour gets away with it. And by condoning it we encourage it.
Complain about this comment
The fact that we don't mind people wearing scarves over their faces in cold weather simply backs the point that our expectations are reasonable, not some nutty dogma.
No, it backs the point that it is not the burqa itself that is the problem.
The burka is a form of hate speech against women. It should be banned.
And this is the nub of the argument: the burqa is not to be banned because of what it is, but because of what it represents, i.e. conservative social mores. It is of course very hard to ban an idea, and any attempt will have serious side-effects such as those mentioned in comment 16 above.
Complain about this comment
Interesting subject! In Saudi Arabia all women, regardless of origins, nationality or religious following are required (forced) to cover up!
Any one visiting, or living there is required to abide by the law, yet no one seems to actively complain about this.
Additionally, one cannot wear a cross in public, or probably any other symbol of one's religion, barring Islam of course.
I don't agree with the above of course, however i will not try to change the system there, it is their choice and their country.
By the same token I find it absurd that immigrants to France, in this case (but to the Western world as a general rule), should try to impose their own dress codes and probably religious convictions (in the long term).
Many immigrants come to Europe to escape the restrictions of their societies, hoping to build a better and safer life, yet they bring with them their prejudices and complexes, and expect these to be tolerated under the guise of freedom of expression and religious freedom.
By allowing / forcing women to wear burga's we are clearly stating that women are different from men, and to be more precise are lesser creations of God (whomever, or whatever one perceives God to be), and as such should be kept covered up and treated as mere property!
To try to convince me that a 13 year old girl wears a burga, or a Hijab for that matter, out of religious conviction is a bit far fetched, she should be enjoying her life just like her male counterpart.
Or maybe God has other plans for the Girl!
Complain about this comment
I see a lot of comments mocking a ban of the burka as an law which cannot be practically enforced.
It goes to show just how stupid some people are.
Has anyone ever heard of the Ku Klux Klan? You know, people who think they are superior to others, only talk to each other, and discuss the overthrow of the government? They also tended to wear full robes and hoods which only showed their eyes.
That was quite popular several decades ago. In fact, they even marched like that down Washington DC in a famous parade.
Well, no more. Their hooded version has been completely outlawed by the Supreme Court in public places. They are not allowed to wear hoods to conceal their identities any longer.
And they don't.
My guess is that people who think burkas should be allowed also think that the Klan hoods should be allowed? Or maybe not. Maybe there is some sort of 'cultural acceptance' going on for one side against the other; toleration for the ultimate stupidity that any sort of people have to offer?
I, for one, do not tolerate it - not from the Klan and not from Muslim extremists. They're both in the same camp to me. Ban the Burka. As a woman, as a secularist, as a liberal, I cannot say it loudly enough: Ban the Burka. Ban it now, ban it forever.
Let it sit in ridicule along with the KKK hoods which people instantly see as a sign of intolerance and idiocy.
Complain about this comment
I am a moslim and I am so against this burka thing that is now becoming the tern for fanatics to say that we are fanatics and we are going to be in your face, so they should be banned from all public existence, if you are a women and get offended to expose your face, which by the way she can't do in Mecca by the law of islam, then stay home and cover what ever you want, but when you come out you come out as human being not as a hidden black thing so scary to most of us, please ban them, they have started so many bad trends in islam and they should be stopped
Complain about this comment
Mrsgerrard, No 16: The reason women in the Muslim world feel more "safe" behind a veil of some kind is because they are brainwashed from early childhood to feel that they are considerably more vulnerable, helpless, and less competent than they actually are.
Little girls naturally model themselves on their mothers. When they see Mother as someone who is one of several wives, forced to swallow her own inner turmoil & suffering at the indignity of that fundamentally unequal position, forced to adapt her every instinct & desire to accommodate the preferences of the senior male in her clan -- husband, father, brother, uncle, even son -- always, always, always putting herself last -- that girl naturally becomes fearful, and convinced of her own unworthiness.
After all, she looks like Mother. She loves Mother. She wants to be with Mother, if only to comfort her in her suffering. And then, with time, she becomes Mother -- not because she chooses that life for herself, but because her Father chooses the man to award her to as property.
How can anyone not grow up with a warped sense of reality under those conditions?
And how much longer can a world as advanced as ours actually is tolerate such intractable, unforgivable abuse of children whose only crime is being born with female organs?
Complain about this comment
Great!
Walk around naked - no problem
Protect yourself from gaze of others - threat to civilization?????
What a double standard?
I hope that decent people in Europe would engage in civil debate and not use political non-sense to impact their societies.
Thank you.
Complain about this comment
The problem is that France, and some other European cultures (and some people in the US too) have become unwilling to accept "culture" as a thing that changes. If you invite people to live in your country, they will bring with them what they know and eventually the two cultures will integrate into one, but the resulting culture will not be the same as either of the originals.
Complain about this comment
Maria Ashot's comments are the most accurate. It's about respect for people, and in this case the equal rights of women. Tradition is no excuse for the violations of women's rights. Furthermore there is nothing in the dogma of Islam as laid out by the Koran that prescribes such treatment of women. Islamic tradition as practised in Muslim countries largely treats women as feudal chattels. This is wrong.
If someone wishes to live in a democratic society, then they must also embrace the concepts of that society, in particular that all people are equal and subject to the laws of the land above all other laws, religious or otherwise. It's about FREEDOM.
Complain about this comment
MA2 (9): Incitement to religious violence is illegal in the UK. Wearing a burqua is not incitement to religious violence. It harms no-one and so should not be illegal. No group in society, even the majority, should have the power to tell minorities how to dress. If the majority in society has the power to tell people how they may dress, then what rights are left to the individual?
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch15.htm
Marie-ashot (13): If a woman is being forced to wear a burqua by men in her society then that should be unacceptable. But if she freely chooses to wear traditional clothing and is prevented by the state then that should be equally unacceptable. A woman is free when she makes her own choices; not when the state or a man does it for her.
Complain about this comment
Gavin Hewitt~
Common Sense among the French in the looming ban on
Burkas.....
-Dennis Junior-
Complain about this comment
UKGuyinBelgium
Re #20
That's a really odd set of experiences.
I'm a UKGuyinFinland with a Finnish wife: Last Novemeber and for the previous 30+ years we have driven across Europe to our Finnish home and to my 2nd home in Brussels.
All credit to the EU since Schengen we drive the 6/7 nations (depending on our route) without let or hindrance.
The thing is, that is our experience everytime crossing and re-crossing the Channel, too.
I was waved into the Dover Customs Hall for a car check about 6 years ago (off a ferry), but the same happened at Calais (off a car-train) - - a spot check - - just a year later. Being innocent of everything (hmm) each time the customs let us go in a matter of 20 minutes.
A small time-price to pay for European solidarity.
Ohter than that neither I nor Finnish wife have had more than a cursory glance at our Passports from officials either side: Though, we are both pleased to admit, thanks to UK Border vigilance the car queue to show Passports and get into UK via Dover is usually long and suggests the UK/England is being protected to some extent.
Complain about this comment
Mrsgerrardq: Yes, "We are in Europe: it's not allowed." That simple. In straightforward language any man from any backwater on earth can understand.
I cannot comprehend how these tribal males who cannot live without TV, cell phones, smartphones, credit cards, automobiles that now speak to you and blow incense at you on command, eyeglasses that change colours, remote control devices for their coffee-makers, microwave ovens, desalination plants for their desert kingdoms -- insist they cannot possibly part with the notion that every single female around them must be enveloped in eighth-century garments from the age of five or so?
Or that the only reason a woman exists is to be sexual entertainment & a womb? Then why did God give women a brain? And by the way, maybe someone should make sure the Islamic priesthoods read that wonderful recent scientific volume titled "The Female Brain." They are short-changing their own societies, and condemning themselves to eternal backwardness, by not availing themselves of the true intellectual advantages many, many female brains actually provide.
It is really quite staggering that we still have to explain this to so many Muslims who actually have degrees from Western universities, trade with us, do business with us, live amongst us even!
Women are not chattel, they are not property, they are not anything less than you, and they do not exist for the specific purpose of entertaining you in some fashion whenever you snap your fingers.
Nor is it the destiny of every woman to bear children. Far from it.
Nor does bearing a child end a woman's capacity to have a functional, satisfying, purposeful life developing her intellectual & professional capacities in fields that have nothing to do with child, husband, family or village. A girl or woman has exactly the same right to pursue her own happiness, interests and self-determination, that a boy does, and that a man does. She has the same right to an education, to work, to employment, to income and to control over her earnings or finances or property.
Any religion that claims anything else is not in fact a religion. It is a cult, and its explicit purpose as a cult is to keep the majority of the human population that is female in a condition of slavery and servitude.
The human population, when it is not interfered with through the deliberate destruction of female lives, naturally produces slightly more girls than boys. Women are biologically meant to be not even a minority, but a slight majority, of humanity. And that is why it is even more outrageous that some men have gone to such dramatic lengths to deliberately confine, contain & control the slightly bigger half of the human race that they owe their very existence to.
How can you possibly get anything done well if you deliberately tie up one of your two arms -- and the stronger one, at that?
Complain about this comment
go back two generations of any immigrant group and you will see tradtional clothing from the country of origin...two gernerations later you cannot tell that population apart from the natives. Patients and tolerance have always produced better results. I remember eating at a Vietnamese restaurant in Paris and greeting the owners young son in Vietnamese, but he only understood French.
Complain about this comment
My mother does not wear a veil, and has never asked my sister to. In her teens, she decided she didn't like the way boys look at her and decided one day to suddenly start wearing the veil - without it having ever even been discussed in her household.
Has it ever occurred to the posters on this blog, that the women who are forced to wear the veil on pain of punishment are actually in a very small minority, and the majority actually choose to wear it themselves??
I agree there are examples of such coercion in some Muslim families. This is disgusting and should not be allowed, but the correct response would be to make it easier for women to come out with it without fear of reprisal and offer proper support when they do. Just like how you would deal with any other example of domestic abuse. The solution is NOT to "liberate" women like my sister, who have no need of it!
Also to answer some other points I've seen in the comments.
SECURITY. It is correct that you are not allowed in a bank wearing a motorcycle helmet or balaclava. If Muslim women are requested to show their face when they enter a bank or other places where security is required (eg boarding a flight) then obviously they should co-operate. We're not unreasonable, you know. It seems a bit of a far cry to say that they shouldn't even wear it when they're just walking down the street minding their own business. In fact, this comparison with motorcycle helmets works in the favour of Muslim women. If you can walk down the street wearing a motorbike helmet, why not the veil?
FRIGHTENING PEOPLE, DISCOURTESY ETC. My sister is a doctor, and she wears the veil on the way to work, and takes it off when she sees patients. To me that makes sense. What does not make sense is posts on this blog saying that women shouldn't even be allowed to wear the veil when they are walking down the street minding their own business. Who is that showing disrespect to, apart from BNP thugs who are incensed at any reminder that the UK is a multicultural society? It's like saying emos or goths shouldn't be allowed because they might offend some people.
My suggestions are the following:
1. Freedom of expression is paramount.
2. In those cases where a woman is wearing the veil out of coercion, make it easier for them to get help (same as any other form of domestic abuse).
3. Work in tandem with moderate Muslim leaders to educate the Muslim public that the veil is not obligatory (and that's only a minority who think that, anyway), and it is not unreasonable for authorities to request to see your face occasionally.
4. Step up security where relevant. As a reminder here, it is a very small percentage of attempted or actual terrorist acts that are carried out under the guise of a burqa. I can think of just one since 9/11. Intelligence seems to be shoddy enough that terrorists don't even have to resort to covering up their faces :-(
Complain about this comment
This is from the UKIP report wanting to ban the burka in the UK.
__________________________________________________________________
Salma Yaqoob, leader of the anti-war Respect party, also criticised UKIP's proposed ban on the burka.
"I certainly wouldn't want to wear it myself, but then to take it to a step where they are going to ban it because I feel uncomfortable with it is something I would say is very un-British because the British way of life is 'live and let live', freedom of speech, freedom of worship," she said.
"As long as they are not imposing it on anybody else they should have the right to wear it."
______________________________________________________________________
Obviously this women doesnt do irony.
Very un-British? You couldn't get much more un-British than wearing the burka and the thoughts and ideology that makes someone want to wear it.
I think an earlier poster is quite correct in stating that it would be just a band-aid to the problem, but it would be a start. Governments have got to get away from being scared of being labled racists because they may have to make decisions which some who are intransient about integration refuse to do so. Having voluntary apartheid can only lead to trouble in the future and it should be addressed now.
Complain about this comment
I agree with "Summer Seale" if it where any other clothing concealing identity (a mask or balaclava) people across the world would openly object to it. In a public place it suggests that that person wants to commit a crime and not be identified on CCTV.
Complain about this comment
Nice to see so many well thought out comments.
Well done Sarkozy. Ban the Burka. I very much hope that his plan for a linkup between southern Europe and the Maghreb also happens. If we engage the Maghreb, we can bring them back to normality.
The conversation here is a healthy part of the required checks and balances to stop society from going off course. For instance, the Swiss minaret ban is a great shame (despite the provocation from the Ramadan brothers' Geneva Islamic Centre).
Complain about this comment
I am a British born Muslim (Turkish parents) and I don't like the Burka at all. To be honest I don't like any form of headscarf or religious clothing. But banning the Burka seems to me to be a bit too extreme.
if the French want to ban the Burka they should ban all religious clothing.
Then it will be fair.
Complain about this comment
Vhe
Re #27
"..maybe God has other plans for the Girl!"
For that read, '...maybe one particular version of God has other plans for females.'
As in, second-class at best and third-class in many Islamic Nations plus all those ridiculous 'west' Nations that fell for the 'multiculturalism' line and failed to spot Islam does not accept any other code but its own.
Complain about this comment
It might be well intentioned(?), but it cannot be applied to all public places. For public employees and a lot of specific situations requiring identification, it makes sense. - WolfiePeters
You're right that there can't be a blanket ban in public areas - (what about motorbike helmets when travelling on motorcycle? People covering up in ski resorts etc? - but I am sure this will be taken into account. It is often mistakenly said that it's illegal for shops to open in France on Sunday... this might generally be true, but an exception is made in touristic zones and for shops deemed to be supporting a recreational activity - so somewhere that sells golf clubs or even sunglasses (yes, I'm serious) can apply for an exception to be made.
I think that this is a good idea, but the media are focussing almost exclusively on the effect it will have on burkas and niquabs which is biasing the way it is reported. I guess that the Islam angle sells more stories - don't forget it applies to covering the face completely in any way whilst in a public place. If you choose to visit or live in France you have to accept French law, ditto anywhere else you might go. I used to live in France and as such accepted the French policy of the separation of private and public life. The first time I was told to remove a crucifix at work in France I was surprised (because I wasn't aware of the law at the time) but I of course complied as that is the way it is done in France.
I do wish however that people would stop saying this is a religious issue. The burka/niquab are CULTURAL attire as opposed to RELIGIOUS. In the Qu'ran it says that women should dress modestly, but it is only in certain regions that this was interpreted in this way. France is not suggesting this law under it's religious or cultural policies, it is suggesting it under identification policies.
Complain about this comment
I can accept that many followers of the various religions around feel the need to show their allegiance to that religion (eg by wearing crucifixes, skull-caps, etc). However, in a democratic republic, one has also to show acceptance (if not allegiance) to the norms and laws of the land. So, in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc, the wearing of a head-scarf and/or veil is a legal requirement.
I understand that Belgium already has a law forbidding the wearing of a face-covering (eg a veil) in public places. This is what the French law proposes. I also understand that the Belgian law causes few problems. Any Belgian resident able to clarify, please?
Complain about this comment
32. At 5:19pm on 21 Jan 2010, ExiledAlaskan wrote:
The problem is that France, and some other European cultures (and some people in the US too) have become unwilling to accept "culture" as a thing that changes. If you invite people to live in your country, they will bring with them what they know and eventually the two cultures will integrate into one, but the resulting culture will not be the same as either of the originals.
----------------------------------------------
The perception is that any positive cultural changes that integration may provide have mainly been given a chance in western societies (in that time has been allowed to see if integration or perpetual separation is the reality) whereas westerners living in many traditionally muslim countries will not have their ways tolerated in public at all.
Complain about this comment
Blatant Racism... First the head scarves, now THIS... I'm sure Xavier Bertrand has never worn a niqab before, so I don't how he would have an opinion on what it's like to wear one... As a white, Canadian living in Dubai for the past 8 years, I've met countless women who CHOOSE to wear one and they're perfectly happy to do so... I find it quite hypocritical that, in your efforts to stop people telling other people what to wear, you're telling people what to wear... I think it's convenient that you say you're "protecting these women" so that you don't have to take the heat for your obvious racism.
Complain about this comment
This is just aubsurd. What does the French government think will happen to the women who wear the full veil? they will walk out in the street, showing their faces, and because more liberated women for it?
No, the reason for the full veil is so that no man can see your face. What will happen, is that instead of become 'prisoners' in a veil, they'll become prisoners in their own homes - they will not leave their houses, either because they personally don't wish to go out without the veil, or if its worn under duress, whoever is making them wear the veil will not let them go out!
At least if they have the veil to wear, they can get fresh air, even if it offends our western sensibilities!
Complain about this comment
Why do people equate the burqa with lack of freedom?
Women that wear the burqa volunatarily do so partly because they do not want to be viewed as sexual objects. When a man looks at a woman, he first looks at her "curves" and her face. This is natural for men, however, such an action degrades women into objects of sexual desire. Look around you, "free" women (those that do not wear the burqa, hijab or other such clothing that resists sexual desire) are being exploited worldwide to push commercial products in ads, marketing events and the like.
So now you decide, does the burqa equate to oppression or does it equate to freedom?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#6
As a motorcyclist, I am required to remove my crash helmet when I enter a public building, such as a bank or off license.
Those who wear a burka should be required to do the same.
I do not feel stigmatised when I remove the helmet, but I do feel maginalised, shall we say - when someone who is completely indistinguishable and without identity is tolerated because of what essentially is a personal choice fueled by the pretence of religious "freedom"
There is no basis for this attire in Islam, only the faux indignance shrieked by liberals and apologists alike who think appeasemnet and the surrender of common sense will solve all our problems.
Complain about this comment
Hijab prevents molestation:-
The reason why Hijab is prescribed for women is mentioned in the Qur’an in the following verse of Surah Al-Ahzab: “O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [Al-Qur’an 33:59]
The Qur’an says that Hijab has been prescribed for the women so that they are recognized as modest women and this will also prevent them from being
Complain about this comment
Suppose two sisters who are twins, and who are equally beautiful, walk down the street. One of them is attired in the Islamic hijab i.e. the whole body is covered, except for the face and the hands up to the wrists. The other sister is wearing western clothes, a skirt or a mini. Just around the corner there is a hooligan or ruffian who is waiting for a catch, to tease a girl. Whom will he tease? The girl wearing the Islamic Hijab or the girl wearing the skirt or the mini? Naturally he will tease the girl wearing the skirt or the mini. Such dresses are an indirect invitation to the opposite sex for teasing and molestation. The Qur’an rightly says that hijab prevents the women from being molested.
Complain about this comment
MariaAshot
Re #37
Impressively argued, cogent, substantive points and absolutely exposing the 'master-male' of Islam as the petty, inferior and envious creature that he is if he is one who demands this Medieval practise continue in the 21st Century.
Complain about this comment
I totally agree, it is outrageous why these women in this time and age should be treated like prisoners, while the husband can do as he pleases. Also when in Rome do as the Romans do should apply to all citisens that leave their country to join another and bring their ridiculous rules and problems across the world, if they don't like it , they can go back. This would indeed bring a precedence for the rest of the world to place rules and laws alike to protect individual groups to keep a niche of similarity from their own countries. People leaving their country should be considered gratified to be accepted in an other nation in the first place.
governments are becoming too lenient, time for a change to reality.Hooray for France!
Complain about this comment
I think the French government needs to check itself. It's resorting to discriminatory tactics, that make it look just as much a terrorist as the radical Muslim faith does when it seeks to prohibit freedom of religious expression within it's borders.
First, "conspicuous" religious symbols and attire. Which is a subjective description to say the least. And now this. So, if a French citizen wants to voluntarily comply (an oxymoron) with the decorum afforded the proper lawful resident, they shall have to abdicate their religious commitment or face punishment.
If Muslims are discriminated against now, because of how they look, what faith is next?!
Andre Gerin and everyone associated with pursuit of this obscene prohibition, should be ashamed of themselves. This feeds exactly what the radical terrorist front claims compels their sick violent behavior against "infidels". Fear! Is the enemy of us all. Didn't the French government learn anything from the war?!
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Herman Goering, Hitler's Reichmarshall
Complain about this comment
Whilst it is deplorable for people to cover their faces in public (it is an insult to the culture of most EU countries) this is none the less a question of freedom.
The Burka represents indoctrination in to a medevil culture that is oppresive to women but by banning the item you are allowing the burkas influence to change our own culture.
It is not european to ban items of clothing. People should be free to be insulted by an item of clothing and people should be free to critisize those that wear a burka but a ban is wrong and self defeating.
Afterall with all the anti muslim socially accepted racism (akin to anti semitism) we have now in the west what have we created? A more segregated muslim community that is steadily more radicalised.
We created that situation, 20 years ago the burka was uncommon. Women who wear them today often have mothers who do not and never have. We are radicalising these people.
Can we not learn from history? After decades of raping and humiliating the middle east what have we created? Country after country ruled by shariah law and populations with regressive views of the world and full of hate.
Complain about this comment
Abdulla and Marie-Ashot, thanks for your wise comments.
Freeborn John, face covering is NOT traditional, either in Islam or in the countries most immigrants come to Europe from. I travelled across Asia and North Africa years ago without seeing it except in a few rare cases.
The modern face-covering fad among European muslims stems from an extremist sect based in Saudi Arabia, who have the money and influence to spread their ideology around the world. In Britain, of course, we allow them free rein even while we fret about the spread of extremism. Nothing to do with oil, I suppose!
Complain about this comment
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=474
Naked Ostrich. The article above is by the Daily Mails Melanie Phillips who I know can be a bit confrontational, but she does point out that the burka is rarely asked to be removed. Utter madness that a man dressed in a burka was allowed to pass through Heathrow unchallenged.
What I don't inderstand is why you think it is okay to wear it. I simply do not buy the argument that it stops men from looking at you. Wearing a free flowing garment and a head scarf with only your face on view isn't that much to ask is it, and the vast majority of men won't give you a second look, I would have thought you are more likely to be stared at by wearing the burka.
Please do not say it is only the BNP who take offence at it, I do and want nothing to do with Nick Griffin and his chums. It is culturally offensive to many in the West who are just middle of the road people and not racists. As those who have chosen to emigrate to the West don't they think that it is not unreasonable to expect them to try and integrate into the culture. Face to face communication is very much part of our culture and if you can not even manage that it really is a poor show.
Complain about this comment
When Western women visit or live in an Islamic country, they have to wear what the Sharia law tells them to, namely a veil.
So when Islamic women visit or live in a non-Islamic country, they should have to do what OUR law tells them to. And if that says you cannot wear a burka, you cannot wear a burka.
There is always a simple alternative.
Women: if you don't like the idea of wearing a veil when you visit or live in Saudi Arabia - don't visit or live in Saudi Arabia.
And if you don't like the idea of NOT wearing a burka when you visit or live in France - don't visit or live in France.
Easy, eh?
Complain about this comment
What about the rights of the woman who chooses to dress as she wishes to?
While there may be some woman out there whose husbands or fathers insist that they wear it, there are far more who wear it through their own choice.
Why should a goverment dictate who can wear what?
I am not talking about situations where a security risk is present, working with children or a safety issue. Common sense must prevail.
Some comments made before suggest that the dress is outdated - it requires an understanding of why woman are asked to dress in order to cover themselves up. It is not anti-feminism. Woman are not seen as described here as a sexual object or a womb! They are daughters, sisters, wives, mothers - all have a role in society.
Woman have a very high standing in Islamic households - they have rights just like the man has rights in family, to work, to earn, to be individuals.
She is honoured, respected and the matriarch.
Woman in Islam never had to fight for their rights. If you read up on womans rights in Islam, you will see that womans rights in the west are lacking. Woman had the right to vote over 1450 years ago (remember the suffragete movement pre WW1?). They are entitled to equal pay (unlike the UK where currently women earn far less than a man).
It may be of benefit to speak with a burka clad woman and ask her why she chooses to wear it. Until you hear and understand her reasons you will continue to see her and what the burka stands for in the wrong light.
It is to protect. It can liberate. It is not enforced.
It is free choice.
Also, please note that this term Islamist has nothing to do with ordinary Muslims going about their daily life, contributing to society, paying their taxes and integrated into UK life.
We all need to identify regular people of a different faith perhaps from your own who believe in a cohesive society and get along with everyone, as opposed to violent, psychologically twisted people who have dared to sully the name of religion to cause harm, distress and death which, in any sense of humanity or in the name of any God fearing religion is the most heinous crime (the taking of anothers life) that is without forgiveness and unfortunately is leading to hatred of others in this current society and larger world situation.
We really need to stop seeing people in the street who choose to dress differently, modestly as something sinister and look to find the ones who are not part of society and wish to destroy what we have in this community, in this country and others.
Complain about this comment
50# stajamm
Come on stajamm are you seriously trying to tell me western women have less freedom than muslim women who wear burkas?
Lets visit a few countries that women generally wear burkas shall we? Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, women have lots of rights there don't they? NOT.
And what is wrong with viewing women sexually? Why would you have a problem with that? And why would you think that degrades women?
You know beleive it or not in the west women look at MEN sexually! This may offend your culture but in europe sexuality is considered normal and healthy.
What i think you are having trouble understanding is that in the west men respect women as equals, so if we see a attractive women walking down the street whilst we may look at her longingly we have total respect for her and would not treat her any differently to anyone else.
The Burka is an insult to humanity, it suggests that men are nothing more than animals unable to contain there urges and women are weak and stupid.
Complain about this comment
Maria Ashots comments are arrogant and offensive. I am an English muslima who wears the niquab or "burka" if you will. I consider myself neither helpless or vulnerable and certainly Islam does not consider me as inferior either. If you were to do your research, males and females are actually considered equal before God. It is merely YOUR opinion that we wear this "cloth" because some old men made up some silly rules years ago, but muslims prefer to follow Gods law not mans. Why do I have to accept YOUR take on life? I am active in my mixed community,I have friendships with muslims and non-muslims alike. I am not oppressed or co-erced into anything.I do not hold the niquab to be obligatory but certainly the hijab is obligatory for muslim women.Not for YOU. For muslims therefore I do not enforce Islam on anyone in this country and I do not support Islamists,radicals or terrorists.Nor do most of the other niquabis in this country.One of the main problems of those opposed to Islamic dress is that they see it as being linked to radical terrorist activity when in actual fact the groups and sects who veer this way often dress more moderately.How many burka wearers have so far committed acts of terrorism? Check out thewahabimyth.com for relevant information on this and other myths about fundamentalist muslims. I follow the fundamentals of my faith and I see no harm in that if it harms no-one else.Clearly Maria dislikes religion and seeks to impose this view on others with a superior attitude which is far more distasteful than a simple cloth.
Complain about this comment
Nude beaches are OK, but burquas are not? Very complicated issue.
Complain about this comment
Summer Seale (28): KKK members wore hoods because their organisation was dedicated to carrying out racial hate crimes and their members knew they needed to disguise their identity from the law. A woman who wears a burka is just going about her lawful business and so is not seeking to hide from the law. There is no comparison between the two.
Jukka (22): People are prohibited from appearing naked in public places because it would cause a great deal of offence to innocent bypassers. A woman in a burka does not cause similar offence, so there is no need to protect anybody by prohibiting her from wearing that. In any case, the French authorities appear to be trying to justify this on different grounds, i.e. that the interests of the state require a high degree of social cohesion which is undermined by minorities with norms that differ from those of the majority. The state should have not have interests of its own, independent from those of its citizens in being free to go about their business unmolested by the law when not causing harm or offence to anyone else .
Frenchderek (46): Saudi Arabia is not a liberal Western state. The fact that they force people to dress a certain way, does not mean we should do likewise.
Gary Hay (52): Your motor-cycle helmet exists to protect you from accidents when you are riding a bike. It cannot serve that purpose if you are standing in line at a bank or off-license. Someone who insists on wearing a motorcycle helmet in a bank must have some reason other than that for which the helmet was designed, and it is far from obvious this could be any legitimate reason. The reason people wear a burka does not however disappear when they are not on the road. So i don't see the two cases are comparable.
Complain about this comment
The French just don't seem to get it! What exactly is this "culture" they keep going on about? Why did they grant citizenship to people in their colonies so they were completely free to come and live in France? Britain didn't do this, yet is much more tolerant of a mix of cultures living side by side. Perhaps the French are really frightened that these "non-French" looking people have something they don't have? I'm sure they're asking for trouble by even thinking about a legal ban - it's likely to provoke campaign of civil disobedience. By the way, I'm French myself, but happily living in the UK.
Complain about this comment
It's also a matter of choice. There are countries where I would be breaking the law if I choose to drink alcohol and, more increasingly, if I choose to smoke cigarettes.
"When in Rome..." as the saying goes.
Complain about this comment
Vive La France
Complain about this comment
I know a lot of people who have lived their whole lives in Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. but have never had identification problems. Life in these countries goes on well with the veil and the burka.
For the people who think too much about freedom, imposing a ban on choice of clothing is a 'restriction'. It goes against the spirit of 'freedom' & 'liberty', which are terms every person likes to propagate, but rarely understands. Therefore, imposing a ban on the Burka will not 'free' the woman. And, this law will lead to many complications as comically mentioned in several of the above comments.
Before imposing the ban on being 'over-dressed', I suggest that the French law makers should consider putting bans on under-dressing! :)
Complain about this comment
Jukka, it is the burka that interferes with personal freedoms.
The tradition of veiling girls from the age of five on is a tradition invented by old men. It is an old tradition -- but so is slavery. So is torture. And we recognise that many old traditions are really not merely unnecessary, but actually evil.
Women cover up not to please God, but to comply with the caprices of old men -- and the old women old men have terrorised into accepting their caprices.
Most young men, certainly, are not keen on having women covered up so that not even an eyelash is showing.
And why is hair so terrifying anyway? Big deal: hair.
All these silly traditions add to the cares and costs of families -- and most families have enough to worry about without also having to spend money on these ridiculous accessories. There isn't any good reason for them if you are not out there in a blazing desert where your delicate skin needs to be protected.
Complain about this comment
#37. Maria Ashot:
"The human population, when it is not interfered with through the deliberate destruction of female lives, naturally produces slightly more girls than boys."
I would like to add some precision here. At conception there are significantly more boys than girls. At birth, there are about 105 boys for 100 girls. The main reason for the many miscarriages of boy foetuses is, to put it simply, the fact that girls have 2 X chromosomes while boys have only one, and if one of them is damaged girls have another one, boys do not. The greater fragility of boys continues in infancy and by the age of puberty the number of girls and boys is about even; it seems that nature has compensated for the greater fragility of boys by producing exactly the number of girls which is necessary for getting the same number at that age. This, by the way, shows how unnatural polygamy is. Men stay more fragile than women throughout their life, and as an average die younger.
#38. ghostofsichuan:
"I remember eating at a Vietnamese restaurant in Paris and greeting the owners young son in Vietnamese, but he only understood French."
This is why only the Arabs have ever complained of racism in France. Their children, grandchildren, and so on, are still first of all Arabs, and refuse to behave as French citizens.
#28. Summer Seale;
I love your comparison to the Ku Klux Klan. In the presence of members of the Ku Klux Klan I am very uneasy, even frightened. In the same way, in the presence of someone wearing the burka, I am very uneasy.
If around 1930 Ataturk could ban the wearing of veils in Turkey, I think Sarkozy should be able to ban the burka in France. I think everyone knows the difference between the balaclava I wear going down the ski slopes, the helmet I wear on my motorcycle, the masks surgeons and nurses wear in a hospital, and the burka. I am sure our legislators will find a correct definition.
Complain about this comment
Personally, I dislike Muslim women wearing a burka or niqab, but as much as I am against it, I believe banning these practices is a bit much. If they choose to wear it, let them do so. Who would have thought that covering every inch of your body was just as offensive as appearing in public stark naked. As the article states:
''Muslims have become more visible across Europe, there is a concern that they are pushing a separate identity that would lead to parallel, not integrated, communities.''
I believe the real issue here aren't Muslims pushing a separate identity, but instead French nationals never accepting anyone who does not fit into their ethnically French stereotype.
Complain about this comment
Am I, as a white male, allowed to wear a black all-enveloping cloak with just a slit for one's eyes as depicted in the photo above, and walk the streets and enter places of business and banks, etc. without hinderance from the authorities or demands that I reveal my face to the gaze of 'strangers' not of my family?
Can I wear this item of clothing in white? And how about with a pointy hood - just like those worn by the various religious brotherhoods in Spain during 'Holy Week'?
If not - why not?
Is mediaeval attire only OK in black?
Complain about this comment
I dont blame the French leader ofcourse he wants to ban it, I would. For heavens sake I think the society would want to idenetify who is walking the streets and the poilice to identify its community, this dressing promtes discrimination against women which is NOT a place to be in democratic societies and it undermines the reality of Islam which denies such a horrific dress code. Not to mantion that it separates these women from other women in the communities, people are suppose to communicate and smile at each other and say good morning to each other and have a pleasant look on their faces when walking the streets, not scaring children and infact adults too for that matter. I wish these people who get over it and have a sense of maturity. Esra ( a proud Turk )
Complain about this comment
"becoming French means "adhering to a form of civilisation, values and behaviour"."
What does it mean to be civilized? and who is to judge who is or who is not civilized?
If you mean by civilized show more skin!! can we then say that nudists are more civilized then people who wear clothes?? I was under the impression that the whole French revolution was about preserving and protecting freedom of choice?? certainly we are talking about how to dress!! this ban shows the confusion that some western countries are in when it comes to confronting Islam and Muslims. In one hand they are talking about freeing the poor Muslims from the grip of the dark ages and the oppression of religion, and in the other hand they are dictating to them what to wear, how to walk and talk what to eat and not eat, how to build their houses of worship !!
what's going on .. I tell the French people .. get hold of your selfs you country is turning to a Model of oppression in the Western world.
Complain about this comment
As a matter of fact, I have given up posting in BBC blogs. But my Muslim pals in Indonesia are insistent that I post some comments on their behalf. After all it was I who introduced them to check-out BBC blogs for Muslim related issues. And once I did help in translating and making a posting on the “Swiss minaret’ issue. One of my pals commented reading these postings on the burqa issue reminded him of his grandfather’s recollection of his philosophy professor (a secular Jew) at the University of Leyden. Where polemical impasse would always end up with the professor’s comment: ‘The Jews know a lot but they got no answers, the Christians also know a lot and think that they have got the answers. But you Muslims know less yet think that you have all the answers.’ Here are their answers.
From a secular point of view, the burqa could be at the extreme left of a scale representing women’s apparel with the extreme right represented by complete nudity. The so-called Western minds had spent much time debating the right-hand side of the scale, the degree of what is acceptable near-nudity. And this struggle to achieve public consensus is seen many areas: TV programmes, fashion designs, sports arenas, etc. All these to say that near naked is ok. The Western minds pre-occupation is hardly surprising as the right-hand side of the scale is a ‘hot area’ involving religion, criminal ordinances, upbringing of children, etc. However, with the burqa; why is there need for controversy at the left-hand side of the scale, the uncontroversial and safe area. What is wrong with extreme modesty?
And when undertaken in conjunction with Allah’s command, it becomes ibadah or worship of Allah, SAW. Have humans become so debased to insist that women should embrace the worship of lustful men’s eyes?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Firstly all you people should educate yourselves on what the main reason the burqa is worn. It is worn to protect women from the predators out there who watch pretty women in porn movies and newspapers and look for the same on the street. How often do you hear of a muslim woman wearing a burqa that has been raped? im 28 years old i have never heard of it in my life. Just because a woman wants to cover up in front of people on the street doesnt necessarily mean she doesn't want to be part of society she is just protecting herself but i doubt you people would understand that because you only see hatred through your eyes not the beauty of it all the women on here saying that it degrades women should look through the news and see how many women rape men so your not equal sorry. The woman is weaker even in the western world and shall remain that way i.e lower status in the workplace etc. In regards to the french looking to ban the burqa i recommend the burqa be removed in shops, banks, petrol stations etc but a full ban is just plain stupid.
Complain about this comment
SAY NO TO BURKAS IN ANY WESTERN COUNTRY!!!!!
SPECAILLY IN FRANCE THE CITY OF LOVE NAD BEAUTY
I DON'T WANNA SEE ANYBODY COVER HEAD TO TOE
Complain about this comment
Naked_Ostrich, No. 35:
If "freedom of expression is paramount," as you assert, why are there no women mullahs? No women imams?
And why were there riots and even a recent attempt to murder a Danish cartoonist for having drawn some rather mild cartoons depicting a man some interpreted to be "Mohammed the Prophet" (he looked much more like Khomeini to me) with what looked like a bomb tucked into his turban?
Why do so many Muslims wish to silence Geert Wilders?
Does freedom of expression exist in the Muslim world? Would your mother be able to walk unveiled on the streets of Teheran, Karachi or Riyadh?
What about Salman Rushdie's "freedom of expression"?
What about the Christian communities -- all over the world -- that a number of Muslim extremists chose to attack on one of the two holiest days of their year? There was the attempt to blow up a plane over Detroit; there was a terrorist attack that killed many in Dagestan on Orthodox Christmas Eve; there was mass murder at a Coptic Christmas service; there have been hundreds slain, on both sides, over attacks on Christians by Nigerian Muslims.
What about the "freedom of expression" of Christians? In Malaysia, some are killed for using the word, "Allah." Churches are burned and desecrated on Christmas Day -- by people who hold veiling to be sacrosanct, as you do. Bibles are banned outright -- not by Communists, either; not by atheists: by "faithful Muslims."
American Christians did not blow up any buildings in Mecca or Medina. Saudi Muslims blew up buildings in Christian America. Yes, many Americans claim the US is not Christian. But it is actually Christianity, broadly construed, that is -- like it or not -- most closely identified with the American persona, whatever other aspects you may also take note of.
You obviously choose to veil yourself out of solidarity with your culture and the religion of your ancestors -- at least the ones who were male. Most Muslim families have plenty of ancestresses in their lineage who were actually non-Muslim women coerced into giving birth to Muslims. Take a close look at the history of Turkey, or any of the wealthy and prominent families of the Muslim Levant, as well as North Africa, and Pakistan.
Yet you also prefer to live in a society where a majority of the men are not Muslims. And you would probably never accept a forced marriage, or the expectations of a traditionalist conservative Muslim male.
Like so many Muslims who benefit from life in the West, you want to have things both ways. The fact of the matter is, you can't.
Events driven by Muslim fanaticism have brought us to this moment, when we are finally drawing a line under the excess and saying: "You want to live in the culture our parents died & bled for & paid for? You accept our rules."
No more having entire countries twisted into knots out of some perverse need to satisfy your caprices. And for what in return? It's not as if we are getting a lot of loyalty, respect or consideration back from you, are we? It's always about your "freedom of expression" -- not our right to speak the truth about our history. That kind of "freedom of expression" rubs you the wrong way, doesn't it?
Complain about this comment
"Maria Ashot's comments are the most accurate. It's about respect for people, and in this case the equal rights of women. Tradition is no excuse for the violations of women's rights. Furthermore there is nothing in the dogma of Islam as laid out by the Koran that prescribes such treatment of women. Islamic tradition as practised in Muslim countries largely treats women as feudal chattels. This is wrong.
If someone wishes to live in a democratic society, then they must also embrace the concepts of that society, in particular that all people are equal and subject to the laws of the land above all other laws, religious or otherwise. It's about FREEDOM."
FREEDOM!sound GREAT!!
Has any one ever ask these women if they were forced to do so? we need to stop judging if we don't know the facts. Most of these women are actually young and French/Europe born! never actually lived in so called their country! Any muslim is an immigrant, are christians around the world are Roman immigrants? because it was Romans who brought todays Christianity in its empire. Most of us are too ignorant! SAD FACT. Is it freedom or exploitation for our sisters, prospective wives and mothers being used naked in advertising, Magazines and tabloids? Why dont we question that? Oh! we can't upset Madock media empire. No one is talking about a ban on minis and tights that expose complete figure. No one interfering with their freedom though it makes some of us uncomfortable with their appearance! I personally would like to see girls/women covered than exposed. That would make men marry and take on responsibilities rather than find free hit and run on Friday night due to exposure.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#66 Freeborn John
I venture to guess that this is exactly the same defense offered by the KKK when their hoods were going to be banned. They were just "gathering lawfully" and expressing their "freedom of speech". Most of them were not convicted of any crimes whatsoever. Yet the Supreme Court in my land ventured to guess that the hood represented intolerance on some level and scared a lot of people when they saw it.
I find the burka to be just as intolerant. It is not required by Islam and is an expression of ultimate separation. I do not think that it is appropriate, just as I do not think it is appropriate to freely express yourself by walking stark naked down the street. If people want to walk around stark naked (let's not discriminate against nudists, shall we?), they can do so at home or in private areas where such conduct is tolerated. Likewise, allow the burka at home, by all means, and in private areas. But in public? No way.
I'm guessing that you don't think that nudists should be allowed to walk around stark naked in public? Some nudists I know take that to be a religious expression as well. Shall we discriminate against them and not burka-wearing fanatics? I don't think so. I think it's time we treat people equally: some things go too far for public displays.
And, for what it's worth, I do think that the burka is inciting hatred. It's a stupid form of enslavement, and I don't care what anyone else thinks. It's a sexual fetish in the extreme. I don't think that submissives should walk around in public stark naked with nipple clamps on, nor do I expect extremely fetishistic maniacs to walk around the opposite way. They're both extreme forms of sexual conduct which I think are fine in the person's house but not in a public area, thank you very much.
Complain about this comment
Maria Ashot, you're not really making much logical sense.
---
The girls and women who wear it are making a public statement about their belief that being born without male sexual organs places a person on a different footing in the world -- a footing of isolation, apartness (apartheid), inferiority and restricted contact.
---
Or, more likely, that's your belief about their belief?
---
Women who insist on strict observance in public of ancient religious laws made up by very old men to limit the freedom and independence of women, as well as -- crucially -- their capacity to decide For Themselves what other people they associate with, and in what manner, are actively subverting the most sacred principles of the Constitutions of every single Western nation.
---
So this is solved by modern laws made up by very old men to limit their freedom and independence, as well as -- crucially -- their capacity to decide for themselves how they will dress?
---
An overwhelming majority of the men in this world do actually approve of greater freedom for women, if only so that they can get closer to us with fewer obstacles in the way.
---
In other words, you agree with certain Islamic scholars who also claim that men are horn-dogs incapable of suppressing their urges ...
---
And how can such a small group dictate to the rest of us?
---
Strangely enough, the whole idea of democracy is, in part, to prevent the majority dictating to a minority. But this part of your comments really makes no sense - no-one is dictating anything to you. A woman wearing a veil is not forcing *you* to wear one, after all.
Are you saying that somehow seeing a woman veiled forces something on you? If so, what?
In return, does this mean I can petition for a banning of perfumes and aftershaves, which are far more oderous (literally) when people (especially those with allergies) have to wade through clouds of those fumes so beloved by modern society that people douse themselves in?
There are hordes of things people force on others, dictate they deal with - this whole debate is one.
There is no logic whatsoever to the idea that the veil is an artifact and practice imposed on women by men to oppress them, symbolic of male-dominated culture's attempts to impose restrictions and a denial of rights on women, and can only be solved by attempts to impose restrictions and denial of women's rights to choose to wear what they wish to wear, when and where they wish to wear it, in a manner consistent with public decency.
You can't advocate solving a behavior by doing the exact same thing without coming across as a blatant hypocrite.
But wait, there's more!
---
How can you possibly get anything done well if you deliberately tie up one of your two arms -- and the stronger one, at that?
---
OK, so it isn't actually about equality, because you seem to be just as gender-preferential as the very people you claim oppress women, just in the opposite direction.
Note to moderators: Everyone has claimed this commenter's posts have been logical and well thought out. This post is to dispute the accuracy of that praise and to highlight the deficiencies in the post itself.
People are really just cowards hiding their true feelings about wanting to ban the veil - it isn't about women's freedom, it isn't about rights, it isn't about equality - especially when you notice just how many people screaming for such a ban are never actually in a position to have to (or choose to) wear a veil to begin with.
The real reason people are up in arms about the veil is fear - they're afraid of Islam, because of the amount of FUD they've been bombarded with over the past 9 years.
This is the people's way of trying to strike a blow against Islam itself, to proclaim their superiority over the religion by trying to banish one of its most visible symbols.
Come on people, grow up. if you think you can make yourselves feel morally and culturally superior through an act of banning a piece of cloth and a cultural more, then boy do you have low standards - and are in for disappointment.
Why is it you're all up in arms to ban the veil, instead of things like banning radical Muslim preachers? What is it with Europeans that their idea of "liberty" and "equality" is - if we don't like it, ban it". That doesn't really work for ostriches, or the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
All this will do is send people who *are* vulnerable out of sight, and radicalize others - This ban idea, supposedly to redress feelings of isolation and marginalization of Muslims, risks *increasing* that feeling of marginalization and isolation.
In effect, you're saying "You get to practice your religion - under our terms".
Yeah, that's really going to make Muslims feel included isn't it?
Start being honest at least with yourselves even though you daren't risk being honest in public, people.
Complain about this comment
This whole debate flames on, fuelled by a never-ending gasoline: the inherent inconsistency between two principles: democracy - rule by the people - and absolute rights which cannot be amended.
Politicians and activists will equivocate otherwise til humanity's death from boredom, but those more disinterested know better: they cannot be consistent. Give it up. Get with the reality. You can insist on "Fundamental, Inalienable and Eternal" rights til you are blue in the face, but in the end these rights were created by a team of international legal scholars and activists (United Nations Commission on Human Rights) and exist as another case of people trying to shape the future in terms, in history. This formulation of human rights is exactly what it is: a formulation. Like every law in history, the notion of its inherent rightness is invalid; the very legal scholars themselves know that!
You can have a law, but in a true democracy, which is what I am told humanity aspires to, the law stands or falls by whether the people see fit to enforce it, or tire of its unreasonableness. In a true democracy no one else can take this decision from them. And I see no logical reason in a democracy why any set of laws, rights, privileges or principles should be beyond control of the people.
Complain about this comment
Devon, #60, To answer your comments:
Of course it's shocking that a man sought for murder managed to flee the country under the guise of a burqa. I agree that women who wear the niqab aren't asked to show their faces as often as they should. HOWEVER, women who choose to wear the veil should not be penalized for a failing on the part of security forces!
Also in your second paragraph, I agree that wearing a black sack thing with your face covered you actually get more looks. For this precise reason, I know many Muslim women who CHOOSE not to wear it. My sister (among others) has made the CHOICE that she will. CHOICE is the key word here. As someone else put it very well, how ironic that to stop people from telling women what to wear, we want to tell them what they can't wear.
Your third paragraph: about my BNP comment - sorry that was unwarranted. But why is it culturally offensive to you if someone is walking down the road minding her own business, just because she is wearing something different to you?
As regards your final comments about integration. My siblings and I speak English better than our mother tongue, we support England in football and cricket and we have more "white" English friends than friends from our country of origin. And we are typical in our strata of Muslim society in England. Is this not integrated enough for you? Or are we still "other" because we wear different clothes? Is your definition of "integration" basically that we should be browner versions of white people?
Complain about this comment
The proposal is to outlaw attempts at preventing the identification of individuals in public. The reason why many Muslims object is that they believe that they have precisely that right (i.e. to prevent the identification of Muslim women in public).
My view is that such a law is appropriate as a crime prevention measure. It is also appropriate because several terrorist suicide attacks have been perpetrated by women (and men) wearing Burkhas because wearing the garment, first, ideally hides an explosive device, and, second, it grants its wearer a certain immunity - at least in the Islamic world.
However, the source of this controversy is, in my view, the incompatibility of Islam (as it presently exists) with pluralism. Given the devout Muslim belief that the Koran is the final revelation of God - i.e. that Islam is perfect and that all other belief systems are imperfect - many Muslims genuinely and sincerely believe that Islamic values 'logically' take precedence over other values. Therefore, while it is true that many Islamic values are essentially the same as other religions' values, the most vehement protests can be expected from Muslims when they are not.
Complain about this comment
Apparently because I am a man if I see a woman without a bag on her head I will drag her to the floor in a sexual frenzy. Clearly this is NOT the case and frankly it is an injurious insult to ALL men.
It is one of the worst forms of oppression to insist that people should be forced to look only at a persons eyes all other natural gesture of communication having been edited out by a bag on the head.
If women want to wear bags on their heads in their own homes and/or in their own bedroom then fine get on with it.
The French have approached this matter with care and attention and the French are world famous for their skills at diplomacy.
Wake up UK. Do you really want to see not merely symbols but instruments of oppression paraded in front of your children daily? Ban it.
Complain about this comment
Sorry. Not "French burka" looms. But Zhulber and Lambiel loom :o))) right now, in the European ice-skating championship. Men. Free skating. Right now. Strongest five are warming up.
Complain about this comment
OK try this on for size.
What if somewhere in Europe declared tomorrow that the bra had been banned, citing the feminism movement bra-burning incidents in the 20th century and claiming that the bra is obviously a symbol of male-domination and symbolic of the oppression of women, and therefore will now be now illegal.
Change it to high heels, which unlike the veil have an acknowledged medically proven risk to women's health, not just long-term but in the short term as well (Ever tried to navigate cobbled streets in heels?)
In that instance, given that the ban was made for medical health and the burden injuries can cause on the public health service and society (not to mention the potential for heels to be used as deadly weapons), what if they were banned tomorrow?
Would there be all this support for either premise? How many women would be clamoring for such bans to not be placed? Certainly, guys would be in favor of the first, but absolutely against the latter (which is odd since they don't have to wear either).
Yeah, thought so.
People aren't for this ban because of women's rights. They're in it to give Islam a poke in the eye. This isn't about their rights, their freedoms, it's about everyone else not being entirely comfortable with such a "foreign" concept.
I bet nuns will get an exemption.
Complain about this comment
Three French! in the top five! where the world is going to! :o)))
Complain about this comment
I think that most of you have got this completely out of context.
Whether or not their husbands / fathers / uncles whatever will ban these women from leaving the house is entirely their decision.
If Muslims want to live and work in a western country then they should integrate with the society they choose to live in.
If this means banning the full vial / burka then this should be done.
It has nothing to do with human rights, sure people should be free to wear what they want, but at the appropriate times.
Walking down the high street for example or doing the weekly shop is NOT the time to wear a full vial in any western country.
I'd like to cast your minds back a few months when the suspected bomber ( Male that is ) Escaped Briton by pretending to be o muslim women!
Without any hesitation boarder control let the guy through to scared to search him ( or her as the authorities thought ) due to all this politically correct nonsense. Worried about the backlash of daring to physically search this person.
If a full vial ban was in affect this would never happen.
If for instance I walk into a shop wearing a HOOD, I get asked to remove it, so why the hell should we allow people who have emigrated to any western country be any different?
Try going to a Muslim country and living by British law, or dressing like a 'westerner'. I give you 24 hours before your either locked up for life or worse, so what makes these Muslims who preach the whole religion / tradition thing different from us.
I say well done France! Maybe the British government could take a leaf out of the French book and maybe we will see less of this 'separate community' rubbish and actually get to know, like and maybe ( god / allah forbid* ) get along with each other.
Note: The statement with the asterisk is a rhetorical one meant to be sarcastic. Please do not take it literally.
Complain about this comment
I don't agree with the comparison 'Wonthillian' makes about his/her mode of dress, worn during cold or inclement weather, being similar to the Burka. When the weather is fine, people who are free to enjoy life to the full don't enclose themselves in shrouds. The Burka may be suitable in the desert to provide protection from wind and sand but if you are granted permission to live in a democratically free and open society you should integrate with that community. The Burka prevents integration and promotes segregation.
Complain about this comment
To naked_ostrich,
Whatever your believes in INTEGRATING with British society I think you got it completely wrong my friend.
If you want to integrate successfully then you MUST abide by their laws / traditions and NOT SET YOURSELF APART by trying to follow the laws and or traditions of whichever country your from.
To do so is to say ' I want to live / work here, but to hell with conforming to what you consider to be reasonable request's by the rest of your society'
Most western countries do not appreciate being followed down the road by someone who we can not identify it's that simple!
If you want to stay in a 'western' country then conform to what the rest of that country deem to be acceptable when in public!
Complain about this comment
mas71, No. 31:
I have lived in all the hemispheres, in many cities & towns, and I have never seen any place where you can simply "walk around naked."
Yes, I know there are naturist communities. Even hiking trails for naked backpackers. All those places are clearly marked.
There are impoverished parts of the world where indigenous populations wear next-to-nothing because their climate is very hot. Is that what you were referring to? Most of the people writing here know we are discussing the EU, which has no public places in which anyone is free to "walk around naked."
One of the hallmarks of religious fanaticism of all stripes is this extreme concern about any display of skin. Bare shoulders, bare backs, bare thighs, open necklines -- all elicit outrage. The opposite extreme -- bundling up a woman in metres upon metres of uncomfortable & unsightly yardage -- is held up as some kind of sign of virtue.
Both extremes are -- like all extremes -- are insulting to a majority of decent people.
We all know which parts are meant to be covered up. And we are all free to raise an eyebrow or two, especially on a chilly London night, when we see young men or young women with bare arms, bare legs, shirts open to the waist, teeny-tiny clothing.
But so long as the main parts -- the ones that actually are meant to be on display in private environments only -- are covered up, crazy outfits are not in and of themselves signs of depravity.
Depraved behaviour is. And treating a female person as the property and plaything of men is Depravity at its worst.
Acting as if a woman is to blame for having hair which someone finds "arousing" is as insane as blaming the murder victim for existing when the sociopath feels a murderous urge overtake him. We all have a good dozen years before the onset of puberty to learn how to manage our physiological responses to stimuli.
Scanty clothing does not make a statement about women's fundamental inequality. (It may make other statements, about wealth or intelligence or sexual obsession, but it does not imply "all women are worse than men and only veiled women are good.")
People who are extremely preoccupied with others' sexual experiences need to see a mental health therapist.
Complain about this comment
doctuer_eiffel do you speak on behalf of all rapist murderers? And be more respectful of other peoples wishes saying things like 'bag' im sorry but i would rather not want to be social with people like you.
Complain about this comment
Moonwolf
Re #85
"... other words: You get to practise your religion - - under our terms.."
Err, Yes!
What is wrong with that?
Exactly when did the majority of Citizens in Continental Europe revert to Middle Age practises and agree to female circumcision, public slaughter of animals, child marriage, stoning of adulterers and many other so-called aspects of a 'Faith'?
Answer: Europe has not.
There are issues of Human Rights concerning 'faith' and as I've written before I cannot see such a ban ever coming into effect in the UK: Nevertheless, your argument that 'you cannot advocate solving a behaviour by doing the exact same thing' simply is not the case in Europe and in this France example.
Certain behaviours/attitudes (as above) among some followers of Islam have been made illegal because they do not fit with the Democratic-Human Right principles of the 'west'/'Europe'.
It is not about feeling "morally" or "culturally" superior: It is about what standards of behaviour Europe (France this time) believes are acceptable norms within the society that also comply with the basic Right to Freedom of Worship. Nothing about a ban on a veil interferes in the least with a Muslim woman or man practising their Religion.
"..making Muslims feel included..": Well, perhaps one part of an inclusion policy is that the female Muslim does not have to conform to a dress-code imposed entirely by males from that Faith who also support ideas that are 1,400 years behind the times!
Complain about this comment
Freeborn John, No. 34:
I know how to drive and enjoy driving. One day, while my car was being serviced, a friend lent me his to drive to work. His car had disabled seat belts. I was caught driving without a seat belt and fined. That same day my older brother fell critically ill in a foreign country, on a business trip.
I forgot about the ticket. BY the time I remembered, the fine was too high. Long story short, my driving license was suspended. I have still not made enough money to get it back. It has been eight years. I don't drive. With the economy being what it is, I may never drive again, because I may never have enough money again to pay for food, shelter, health supplies, bills -- and that driver's license.
In the country where I live there are rules about who may drive. They have nothing to do with how good one is, how careful, or what the motivations might be. The rules exist to create an even playing field.
Just as it does not in fact infringe upon my rights to require that I comply with the laws about paying traffic fines before I can drive again, it does not infringe upon anyone's rights to provide them with rules about what they may wear in public, when it seems there is a contingent of residents who believe they are entitled to go about the streets proclaiming, through their outward garb, their religious & fervent conviction that women are less human than men, and do not have the same intrinsic rights as men.
The statement they are making -- even if "of their free will" (and I don't buy that for a minute; they are absolutely doing it to please an older male, whether they own up to it or not) -- denigrates ME, myself, this other woman walking the streets or queuing up next to them. It makes a statement about my daughter.
It makes a statement about my female colleagues or my son's sweethearts. And even about The Queen.
It is, fundamentally, hate speech. To suggest a girl or woman may never attain any standing greater than Fifty Percent of literally any male felon or derelict is, unambiguously, hate speech.
Gift wrap it as much as you like: that is still what it is.
Let me put it to you another way: is it what Hezbollah requires? Then how can you defend it?
Complain about this comment
13. At 3:56pm on 21 Jan 2010, Maria Ashot wrote:
"The burka is a form of hate speech against women. It should be banned."
I agree whole heartedly with the natural response of banning the instrument of oppression however I say it is also injurious to men for similar and different reasons to women so thus describe it as a form of hate speech against ALL humanity.
Ban it.
Complain about this comment
Yes!
Complain about this comment
Maria,
---
In some haredim communities, or for example religious communities of very traditionalist Christians, there are customs about covering women's heads, or arms, or not wearing very short skirts. But these traditions are never so stringently enforced as they are in the Muslim world.
---
Ever tried to sit on the front of a bus in certain parts of Israel?
That one's hilarious really - when someone was told to sit at the back of the bus over here 60-odd years ago, she said "no", and a massive civil upheaval took place which everyone now agrees was "just" (we even just got done celebrating Martin Luther King Jr Day, who spearheaded the civil rights movement until some Klukker gunned him down) - Anyone want to start a Rosa Parks movement in Israel? No? Whyever not?
Summer Seale:
The KKK's sheets were outlawed because they were associated irrevocably with an extremist Christian terrorist group whose sole purpose is to deny blacks and other minorities in the South their civil rights, and engaged in acts of terror and murder to conduct it.
Given their existence was solely in order to carry out criminal acts, they were forbidden from concealing their faces, as such concealment was solely part of the criminal acts themselves.
Now unless you're about to turn around and say that Islam is exactly the same category of group, the two scenarios aren't the same - and State Supreme Courts to date that have addressed the issue of veiling over here have been content with the Islamic instruction that permits, indeed instructs, any veiled Muslim to unveil when required to in order to prove their identity to the authorities.
The oddball in Florida who refused to needed to refresh her memory on that.
I don't know, maybe it's the pervasive surveillance in the totalitarian democracy that is the UK that's driving this resentment of the veil posted here on this site, even though the topic relates to France?
After all, you've all surrendered your privacy (Hello to the 4 people who's bedrooms I've seen into thanks to YouTube postings of the CCTV camera footage outside to date) - Maybe you simply resent that there might be someone out there who still has some privacy left.
Or is it the modesty that makes you feel uncomfortable? The only way you can really get on in life in the UK is on your looks alone (Remember what people thought of Susan Boyle *before* she opened her mouth?). How threatening is it to find a group that's perfectly content to not be judged on their looks?
In fact, how many people are secretly seething because they can't even compare themselves to someone veiled to figure out their own place in the beauty-hierarchy that consumes so much of their time and money?
Serious intelligent rational people see the arguments for a ban to be simply red-herrings designed to conceal the true underlying motives behind the desire to ban the veil. The problem is there are so\ many much more plausible reasons to explain this - just people are way too uncomfortable to see them.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I strongly believe that women should not be wearing a veil when they are on the road. Anything can happen any time any where. So face is the object which we can find some one easily. On the other sideno people should be fighting for the religious matter. For example if you go to Saudi Arabia, you are not supposed to carry a Bible or Geetha (Hindu religious book). They fully banned it over there. Also you can't have any religious meetings or prayers apart from Muslim prayers in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countires. So I feel it is not fair to accept the veil system in France. I love people. But I consider every one. I do not believe in religion.
Complain about this comment
Stajamm
Re #50
No, you have a good look around you.
Many of those 'free' (meaning 'western liberated' I assume) women you claim are exploited are exploiting their looks, talent, expertise and making a fortune: Well known examples would be Madonna, Kate Moss etc. Other women by following other paths have also succeeded by working hard in their chosen fields: E.g. Hilary Clinton, Angela Merkel.
There are million sof other 'western' females who have very successful, rewarding lives and the idea that they are 'degraded' by being attractive to males is simply your out-moded and chauvinistic attitude to Women as a gender.
You actually think as a Male of the species the little ladies need your 'protection' from the big, bad man!
Yes, there's abuse of females in the 'western' world. At least we in the 'west' are aware it goes on and have Laws against it, whereas, you like to pretend a veil stops that sort of thing.
Just how out of touch with the reality of 'human nature' can you get holding to this sort of 'faith'!?
Complain about this comment
At 4:20pm on 21 Jan 2010, aamir wrote:
"nobody, in places open to the public or on streets, may wear an outfit or an accessory whose effect is to hide the face"
THIS STATEMENT MEANS ONE SHOULD NOT WEAR MASKS TO PROTECT ONE FROM DISEASES EG.SWINE FLU
Which part of "whose effect is to hide the face" did you not understand? Wearing masks in Swine Flu infected areas was *not to hide the face* but to *prevent inhalation of pathogens*. Please read what you quoted in your comment once again and try to understand what it means.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
97. At 8:29pm on 21 Jan 2010, nurish wrote:
"doctuer_eiffel do you speak on behalf of all rapist murderers? And be more respectful of other peoples wishes saying things like 'bag' im sorry but i would rather not want to be social with people like you."
I don't speak on behalf of ANY rapist murderers.
Perhaps I should have described it as a bag with eye holes. What it is. It is an instrument of oppression and thus worse than disrespectful. Ban it.
With regards to being sociable with me I couldn't care two hoots about a slippery apologist of an oppressive device and if you were really sorry you wouldn't have said what you did say to me.
You just make it more obvious the bag with two eye holes called a burqa should be banned globally.
Complain about this comment
Maria:
Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. That's the end result of "licensing".
Since it's not a right, whether you get banned from driving for not paying a ticket is no different from you not being able to drive until you take a test and get a license. Neither removes any "right".
If I told you that I could decide what you will or will not wear, and you will not wear anything cream or white on the third thursday of every month, but you will wear something blue on every saturday that falls at the end of the month, that *is* infringing on your rights.
Would you agree to me deciding for you your clothing choice like that?
Why should you or anyone else decide what a muslimah wears?
cool_brush_work: Kudos for being the only one to admit publicly that the idea of freedom of religion is a fallacy :P
This whole concept that "Well, there isn't any in KSA, so why should we have any here?" is the most complete total and utter load of codwallop I've heard on this debate so far.
When I was a kid, my mother used to ask me "And if they jumped off a cliff, would you do so too?" when I'd point out my friends could do things I wasn't allowed to.
The same reply works here, in spades.
In fact even more so. What people are really saying is "Well, KSA is oppressive against other religions, so we'll be just as oppressive while at the same time proclaiming how we're so much better than they are because we don't do that".
And this, boys and girls, is why I am so much happier to live in a country where freedom of religion is enshrined as the very first principle and right of the constitution.
Sure, we have Branch Davidians, Scientologists, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Moonies, Hare Krishnas, The Osmonds Fan Club, and Satanists, but the whole point of "freedom" is to not be oppressed in your choices as a minority by the majority.
I'd rather that anarchy than being dictated to by some eurocrat.
How long before you all get RFID chipped again? I assume they'll go that route since the tattoo route was tried but you came to your sense (briefly) by the last attempt to micromanage you into good little clonizens.
Complain about this comment
BBC raises a provocative topic inviting what are bound to be sharp opinions and when it gets those it doesn't agree with it censors them. My experience in life is that inside a British skull is a cement brick. That's one thing Brits have in common with other Europeans. Perhaps they should form a union.
Complain about this comment
What is it about Alla's creation that is so offensive to SOME doctrine driven whacko religious nut-jobs?
Complain about this comment
#102 Moonwolf
Actually, yes: I do see the burka as an expression of cultural hatred from an extremist minority. Yes I do indeed. And yes, I do put their version of Islam in the same hatred group as the KKK. Yes, I do. I don't brand all Christians as KKK members, nor do I brand all Muslims as burka-supporting Islamist fanatics. But I do brand KKK fanatics and Islamist fanatics in the same category.
Yes, I do.
I also brand burkas as an inappropriate expression of a sexual fetish which is extreme and, thus, not appropriate for public display. Wear whatever you want in between being naked or covered from head to toe as a form of whatever sexual fetish you happen to be on the side on - that doesn't bother me. But those two extremes are not meant for public display.
So, sorry...I don't agree with you. I think you're way out of line to think otherwise about that brand of Islam. And I guarantee you that people who orient themselves around the burka do indeed listen in Mosques to preachers telling them how the infidel is going to hell - the same intolerant hatred that hooded KKK members listen to in their churches.
As tons of people have already said: there is nothing in the Koran about the burka. So please don't make it a religious issue because it isn't. It's a stupid cultural issue that latches on to religion as an excuse.
Ban it already.
Complain about this comment
66#
You misconstrue my point. I don't wear a helmet in public because I am aware of the connotations associated with armed robbery and crime - but my underlying point is attempting to address the question of what does wearing a hijab or burka protect one from? Nothing. Yet we accept it regardless.
Like you said, my helmet serves a purpose - to safeguard my life - looking at this sensibly - surely a man or woman who is conscientious and law-abiding enough to use safety equipment is more trustworthy than someone who actively seeks to guard thier identity from all and sundry?
What's to stop anyone dressing as a veiled muslim woman (like the failed 21 July bomber who evaded capture and was the subsequent catalyst of the JCDM shooting in stockwell) from conducting any number of heinous crimes with impunity?
You don't see my point because you arn't looking at the larger picture. I accept that I should take my helmet off in the interests of not provoking fear or anxiety in public. Can anyone who advocates the use of the burka say the same?
Complain about this comment
#96 smart and extraordinarily insightful.
1000 cool points to you.
Complain about this comment
Someone raised a point that there is no way a 13 year old would take the niqab.My wife's cousin was 13 when she chose it for herself.Her mother was doing it all her life, yet no one forced it on her.She decided herself that she wanted to do it.And who are you to criticize her choice.SHE IS A BRITISH CITIZEN and as such has the right to choose what to wear or what not to wear.As far as I am concerned, I will support her choice just like I support my wife's choice of not wearing a niqab.
As for her mother who does the niqab, she is a qualified doctor.She chose the niqab of her own. She wore it and dropped her children off to school and was actively involved in the school communities. When her husband was off to work, she wore her niqab and went shopping or took her family to the GP, even dealt with people who came into the house.And again, as a BRITISH citizen, she has the right to choose what she wears. If you do not like it, maybe you should leave Britain then.
Most of the people probably haven't spoken to any lady in niqab to even discuss with them why they wear it.And I am not bothered about what women wear in Saudi Arabia or Iran. If you are so concerned about that, maybe you should go to those country and ask their women if they need saving.
I cannot believe how most of the people on this forum suddenly think they are saviours that all these women in niqab are waiting for...get off your high horse.
And as for the security situation is concerned, most niqab wearing ladies I know are more then happy to comply with all security regulations including showing their face at the hospitals, airports, banks, for driving license, etc.
Complain about this comment
It's VERY simple.
If France outlaw them, and you want to wear a burka, go and live in a country that allows them.
SEE?
Complain about this comment
No one seems to have asked a Muslim lady her view and so it seems quite unfair to make a law based on an assumption rather than fact. I wear the Burqa... I started as an adult, and certainly of my own will. I had no male influences and it was never to obey any male supremacy. Some of these ideas make me laugh. I, and perhaps the other 100 ladies I know who wear it share this and perhaps there are some who are forced to wear it, but I cant see how really. The choice to wear the burqa comes due to our different perception of women - I feel secure and quite happy that my physical appearence is not being judged.It may not be a view that other Brits share but it is not one that is ill-rooted or has evil intent....rather its about respecting that I have made my own decision based on my personal view and to ban the burqa is taking that right away.
Cultural understandings must be appreciated...when I lived in the East for a year, they perceived women in the West as sex objects who had only physical worth due to the way women dress out here -again, convincing women there that many women in the West dont see themselves as such was just as hard as convincing people here that our covering is in fact a liberation for us, and many of us have achieved a respect for intellect rather than physique by wearing it.
So to ban it on that basis is just out of the question and yes to forcefully impose a woman who wants to cover, to uncover, just is hypocrisy.
As for it being a security matter then I have never had aproblem in confirming my identity and have in fact found people very respectful in allowing a woman to check my face at the airport, bank etc... never been an issue really.
Lastly, if its a case of the society not liking it and wanting to be able to see the face, then in my view I dont think that justifies a ban and is in fact unfair to people like me who enjoy wearing it and mixing in society, meeting with my neighbours, participating in the workfield and events related to my family... pretty much what other Brits like doing. Most dislikes to the Burqa are based on what you may perceive rather than what is fact...
Accepting that people are different is a right we all enjoy in the UK and to restrict people to all comply to the norm is just not typical to our society.
Complain about this comment
There are several people here who have pointed out that in other countries, in this case Islamic countries, visitors have to abide with the local laws and if that means women have to cover up, then they have to cover up.
In countries that don;t have such beliefs, we don't have laws that say that women can't cover up if it's used as a form of discrimination (in our minds), and/or for ease recognition and communication, but if we did, wouldn't it be reasonable that visitors to our countries abide by that law as we, in general abide by their's?
Then again, we have a different mind set. Would it not be liberal to pass such a law? Do we need a completely liberal society and thus would some less liberal laws be acceptable? These are all questions that need to be answered, if we are to anything. The degree to which we each have our ideas ingrained in us seems to be the main problem.
This could also apply to other "social rules", such as the level of skin exposure that is acceptable (though this seems to be partly solved as compromises have been made in both directions).
Complain about this comment
Islam does not decree that women need to cover their faces. The tradition comes from the cultrues of countries who also happened to have Islam as their main or only religion. France has it's own culture and identity and the French people have every right to declare that the burka isn't suitable for their society, even if worn voluntarily.
The fact is France is a democracy and it's a matter for the people of that country to decide what they want within their own society. If it's an unpopular idea it wont get very far, if it is it will. Hurrah for democracy!
Complain about this comment
What is interesting here is that the debate regarding the burqa in France is another example of the paradoxes within French Republicanism. The decision is certainly no surprise if you know your French political history, and it's also consequently something which is almost impossible to apply to the UK.
French citizenship is open to anyone provided that they accept French culture. It's a cultural and not a racist citizenship... thus... any race is welcome, provided they publicly adhere to French customs. Privately, they may practice their own culture/religion.
It's both an acceptance and rejection of difference.
Complain about this comment
The great Imam Al Albaani said:
"It should be noted that there is a foundation in the sunnah to cover the face and hands. The act was known at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), which is indicated in his (peace be upon him) words (In meaning):
"A woman in Ihraam(while performing the rites of Hajj) should neither wear Niqaab or gloves." [al-Bukhârî (4/42), an-Nasâî (2/9-10), al-Bayhaqî (5/46-47) och Ahmad (6004).]"
Likewise:
Aa'ishah (the Wife of ProphetMuhammed) said:
"Horsemen used to drive us when we were with Allâh's apostle (Sallaa Allaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) in Ihraam. When they came close to us, each and every one of us pulled down our Jilbaab from our heads over our faces. When they passed us, we uncovered them again."
(Ahmad (6/30), Aboo Daawood, Ibn-ul-Jaarood (418) and al-Bayhaqee in al-Hajj, with a good chain)
Complain about this comment
Maria:
---
And what about the fact that all these wacko mass murderers from your community are married to burka-wearing women and were raised by pro-burka families? You think that doesn't matter?
---
Wow, I wonder how many Catholic and Protestant families raised their terrorist sons and daughters in NI to wear burkas!
I never knew burkas made terrorists.
I thought it was just extremists who make bad connections between cause and effect.
Complain about this comment
This ban whilst purporting to defend womens rights neatly throws out the
window cherished notions of tolerance and liberty,of the rights of the
individual, as absurd and as counterproductive as the Swiss minaret ban
What attire comes next.... platform shoes,stilletos(very dangerous)
polyester shirts(smelly)A Democracy such as this is no longer worthy of the name.....
Complain about this comment
France is a Laic Country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laicité
If you don't like that don't apply.
I think the rest of the world's governments have something to learn from the French.
Complain about this comment
Isn't there any way in which we can negotiate with the perpetrators of this female imprisonment and degradation instead of further victimizing the victim ? Instead of a law against the imprisoning garment, could we not find a way of conveying to the men whose cultures have claimed this as a religious essential, that it is in fact a cultural practice in the same way as ritual sacrifice was a pagan cultural practice. In other words, can we not begin an argument for enlightment in education and in society as whole, rather than encourage obstinacy of belief that this practice is based upon religious observance and that the infidel's attempts to quash it must be overcome ? My experience of life in general is that confrontation only serves to further deeply root such beliefs and that challenged as aggressivley as is contemplated can only lead to more violence and to greater radicalization of the impressionable young who then see themselves as a repressed and embattled minority, instead of a socially emancipated minority. If the women themselves rose up as one and threw off this yoke and defied the notion of their subservience and rejected this symbolic camouflage then it would be a different matter.
Complain about this comment
Moonwolf, No. 85:
No, I am not "gender-preferential." You are.
I say women are, metaphorically, "the stronger arm" of the human race because women put up with so much, and still get on with it, in spite of all the unnecessary extra burdens sexist attitudes impose.
You are a man, are you not, Moonwolf? Your text reveals that.
I have never for a second pretended I am not a woman. I use my true name and it tells anyone who sees it I am Female, and a Christian. I know that in the minds of some those are disadvantages, but I am not going to shy away from the fight. Because it is time to break through the mental baggage that prevents humankind from fully availing itself of the extraordinary capabilities of some three billion underutilised & under-appreciated girls & women.
As a woman, Moonwolf, I operate in a world in which males hold most of the power. Would you disagree with that?
Under considerable pressure over a couple of centuries now, most notably, the male power elites have gradually come around to the view that no society is well served by systematically relegating women to a set of prescribed roles.
Most recently, women in Western countries, as well as in China (not a Western country) have made considerable gains in their ability to chart a personal course for their lives not very differently from the way boys chart theirs, from an early age.
Even though women in the more female-friendly societies (Western countries, China, some parts of the ex-Soviet states, some parts of South America) have considerably greater opportunities open to them than their grandmothers did, they still face quite a bit of discrimination in the one area that matters most to human survival: employment.
When I am interacting with peers who are themselves Westerners, but in a country in which there is a strong, influential & visible Muslim presence (as in the UK), and these peers of mine are frequently reminded that some billion human beings view women as inferior to this day -- by the presence on our streets of women wearing various kinds of veils to assert their adherence to this belief -- I have a harder time being taken seriously in my profession.
And that is true of every other woman besides me.
If my posts here, or my work elsewhere, were signed "Mark Schott" instead of "Maria Ashot" -- regardless of the content -- it would be more readily accepted as valid, by many, many people of both genders and all cultures. That is the sad state of affairs today.
If, as a human race, we are to get beyond the old befuddlements that hamper our progress, we need to begin to Accept Fully the Full Humanity of Every Female, and actually allow her to prove her worth on a truly level playing field.
I applaud the men (and women) who already are willing to consider a woman's work on its own intrinsic merits.
And I am sorry to have to remind you that there are still many, many men (and women) who struggle with what they perceive to be the "incongruity" of an "intelligent woman."
There is absolutely nothing illogical about what I have written here, Moonwolf. It is just from a different set of experiences than yours, that is why you are unhappy with it.
Believe me, no little girl is born craving to get all covered up for 85 years of her life. All that "free choice" is just indoctrination & enforced custom. Really, and truly.
I am reminded of a wonderful teaching experience I once witnessed at a seminar for executives on disability awareness. A group of able-bodied adults was asked to get into wheelchairs and try to get through their workday in them. In less than 15 minutes, they absorbed the lesson.
Moonwolf, and some of you others lobbying for the "right" of women to wear these garments every day of their lives until they die, any time they leave the home: you try doing it, for just one day. Even in just the head veil. Just try. I challenge you.
Then tell us about what a great "free choice" it is.
Complain about this comment
Did England ever repeal the law that banned people wearing a mask when travelling on the King's highway ? If not then the Burka is against the law of the land as if the wearer was a highwayman, intent on wrongdoing.
Myrdon 21/01/2010
Complain about this comment
Moonwolf, No. 91: You are not serious?
And you call me illogical?
Complain about this comment
WA
Here is a fashion critique by one of our generals. You know I'm fond of generals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl_HvEHSlxQ
Complain about this comment
53. At 6:09pm on 21 Jan 2010, ArifurRahman wrote:
"Hijab prevents molestation"
Your comment says, more clearly than I ever could, what is so wrong with women covering themselves to meet your standards of "modesty".
MEN DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO MOLEST WOMEN. It doesn't matter what we are wearing or not wearing. Men who assault women are in the wrong. Women should not have to dress in a special way to protect themselves.
Women who slavishly obey this command are not only debasing themselves. More importantly, they are putting other women in danger -- women who do not obey this arbitrary dress code and are therefore considered fair game for attack. This isn't just theoretical: cases have been reported recently of women in islamic countries being stoned to death for having been raped.
Life is Islamic states is hell for women. And you think we should passively accept these sick attitudes in Europe?
Complain about this comment
Your third paragraph: about my BNP comment - sorry that was unwarranted. But why is it culturally offensive to you if someone is walking down the road minding her own business, just because she is wearing something different to you?
Short answer is yes. What ever happened to compromise. I have no problem with somebody who wishes to wear traditional clothes from their homeland. All I ask is that the face is shown, is that really too much to ask. Integration of which you obviously fail. I dont want to see anyone fully covered without good reason, it looks sinister and is totally against our culture.
As regards your final comments about integration. My siblings and I speak English better than our mother tongue, we support England in football and cricket and we have more "white" English friends than friends from our country of origin. And we are typical in our strata of Muslim society in England. Is this not integrated enough for you? Or are we still "other" because we wear different clothes? Is your definition of "integration" basically that we should be browner versions of white people?
If that is the case then you should have no problem showing your face on the streets. How do you square the circle by saying you are integrated when you wear the burka. Good grief even a wet lettuce like Jack Straw put his head over the parapet, and spoke out against it. Also I would refer you to to my earlier post of wanting a level playing field. How would you feel if groups of men started wearing masks not to be recognised on the streets, intimidated, I would and not wish to see it.
Complain about this comment
Allah say in the Quran:
"Tell the believing men to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts). That is purer for them. Verily, Allâh is All-Aware of what they do.
Surah Al-Nur, 24: 31
"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts, etc.) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like palms of hands or one eye or both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer dress like veil, gloves, head-cover, apron, etc.), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms, etc.) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husband's sons, their brothers or their brother's sons, or their sister's sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islâm), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex."
Complain about this comment
Muslim women dress modestly for the same reasons that Christian nuns dress modestly. It's for their chastity and dignity. The face veil is entirely optional in Islam. The French society would be ok with a woman dressing seductively in public, but has a problem with a woman covering up. As a woman, I find that wearing something loose covering is much more liberating, than having to wear something that reveals my body.
In Islam, a woman's inner qualities are given more importance than her outer, physical qualities. When a Muslim woman goes out in public, she demands that people judge her by what's in her brain, not what's on her body, or how attractive she appears. A burqa is a cultural dress. Muslim women can just as easily wear a loose fitting jacket and pants with a head scraf. I believe some women wear the burqa because they're comfortable in it, as compared to pants and a jacket.
Many women in the West have tremendous emotional and psychological problems because they believe their body isn't as attractive as it should be, as defined by men and media in that society. Their bodies are in constant view of the public, because their clothes are tight fitting or revealing. There is tremendous pressure for women in these societies to look good in public, which leads to a whole host of problems. Covering up your body with loose fitting clothing, not necessarily a burqa, can be very liberating.
Complain about this comment
Hijab basically means 'Modesty', not just the cloths also the way muslims talk,speak and see etc..in all the religion modesty level is required thats why the nuns are similarly dressed like muslim womens. The reason is because the womens will not be molested when they go out and will feel secured or safe. In the bible it says anyone who looks at a women and lusts at her beauty has already commited adultry in his heart ..so this way it will prevent it to happen.
Complain about this comment
#110 "BBC raises a provocative topic inviting what are bound to be sharp opinions and when it gets those it doesn't agree with it censors them. My experience in life is that inside a British skull is a cement brick. That's one thing Brits have in common with other Europeans. Perhaps they should form a union."
Away american. You have no business here.
Complain about this comment
burkha is right of woman same as in european culture wearing short clothes is regarded as their rights(modern world), how can one a gov ban this. woman who wants that man to recognisee them of their mind,nature,behaviour and not from size and shape of the body how they gone cope up with this. tommorrow if french gov says that wearing short cloths or showing body parts has proveked man desires and inturn resulted in more rape cases so we gone ban them as for regonisation only face should be uncovered as this more than sufficient, how the french people will react to this..... i better think with more eduction people are becoming dump comfare to older generation.... dont you clearly see its just for votes............ as someone has said thirst of money is nothing agaist thirst of power....
Complain about this comment
rahman786
Re #135
So, you wear a hijab/burka/jilbab and let the rest of us who are in the main in control of their 'lust' get on with being normal males and females going about their daily lives.
Complain about this comment
I have read the comments with great interest. I neither agree nor disagree with banning the burka, niqab or veil but I think it is a challenge to be confronted as it is manifestly an assertion of difference and separatedness.
Somebody wrote that Democracy fundamentally exists as protection of the minority from the majority. No it is not. Democracy is fundamentally the will of the majority of the demos shall hold sway over the will of the minority.
However, in a civilised society that holds truck with democracy, the majority will wish to protect the minority or minorities of that society. However, if the will of the majority in any democracy is that the minority should obey a law common unto all members of that society then the will of the majority must prevail.
The bottom line is that in a Moslem society (not that there are many islamic societies where true democracy exists!)the freedom to wear the veil is permitted by the majority. In a majority Christian society, if the will of the people be that the veil be banned, then banned it shall be.
The real problem is that France would claim to be a civilised democracy but, if the ban prevails through weight of the majority supporting such a move, true democracy will prevail but the French claim to being civilised will take a knock back and French society be no better than any despotic islamic society which it would not wish to be associated with.
Complain about this comment
muslom
Re #132
The only "..shame in sex.." is put their by medieval bigoted, chauvinistic, sexist views as propounded by someone you may believe is divine, but of whom many of us do not regard as anything of the sort, or share that 'faith', or those views.
Complain about this comment
Maria:
Bzzzt, sorry, wrong answer. Try again.
And as a side note: I'm also a wheelie. Anything else you'd like to assume, or would you rather I try to play the poor disadvantaged crippled woman thing?
I should warn you, I'm not very good at it, since I don't play into society's expectations of being the poor disadvantages crippled woman though.
Unlike feminists, I don't try to find personal fulfillment by trying to be more of a man than men are - or as is more usual, just trying to get the bar lowered so men are more like women just to make it even..
I even have husband and *gasp* I got pregnant and had a child!
I guess I must really be a failure as a woman.
I raise this because I think feminism is another one of those "hidden" reasons behind people supporting a ban on the veil. It truly *is* symbolic for feminists - a veil is incontrovertibly symbolic there's a woman beneath it, just as much as any skirt or any high heels might be.
Which raises a truly ironic point - I've heard that one of the reasons many muslimahs choose to wear the veil is so that they can be treated on a more equal footing - not based on how feminine they look, or desirable, but on their personality and intelligence.
You'd think it would be perfect for feminists - indeed, I believe many veil-wearing muslimahs would self-identify as feminists.
Which is a better way of achieving gender equality? Trying to be equal, or just trying to force people to pay lip service to the idea? Banning the veil won't in any way, shape, or form change anyone's opinions about muslimahs, Islam, or women in general, neither will it make any difference in their lives, real or assumed.
What exactly is the point?
Is it for them? Or for everyone else?
Complain about this comment
Will the gender conscious state that fights for feminine liberation now
extend its reach into lap dancing clubs,husbands that make their wives
wear sexy clothes,vendors of corsets ? probably not, this legislation smells of fear and zenophobia.... but will delight extremists on all sides.
Complain about this comment
I am a Muslim woman, and I agree that Islam DOES NOT require women to wear a full veil. HOWEVER, I believe that each person has the right to be comfortable in their surroundings and should have the choice. If a woman is more comfortable with a burka, well then that's her prerogative! This is not a dictatorship. What next? You’ll ban the Sikh turbans? C'mon, get real!
Complain about this comment
I am a Muslim woman, and I agree that Islam DOES NOT require women to wear a full veil. HOWEVER, I believe that each person has the right to be comfortable in their surroundings and should have the choice. If a woman is more comfortable with a burka, that’s her prerogative! This is not a dictatorship. What next? You’ll ban the Sikh turbans? Get real.
Complain about this comment
With the new body scanners being installed in our airports that is a high tech version of a strip search for all, maybe the Politically Correct solution is to keep the burka but introduce the body scanners into the streets and shops.
Complain about this comment
Full burka/facial veils should be banned. They are in Belgium. Europe is a secular state/group of states. And this goes for any religion or group. It's not only a matter of security, but integration into society. How can people integrate when they are so distant that you can barely see their eyes?
As for becoming French or EU citizens, states should make language lessons and EU/country history lessons mandatory.
Becoming an EU citizen should be a right of passage, not a letter stating come and get your ID card! I was born a political refugee (due to father's status) and became an EU citizen a few years ago. It was a non event.
To be an EU citizen, one should feel proud and honored to have this status. A course like they have in the US should be the standard. The course itself is attended by people from all backgrounds and is already a good way to integrate into society. The veil only puts a distance between people. They can still practice their religion without it. For integration and security reason, BAN THE (full) VEIL!
Complain about this comment
Why our women all over the world when they visit the lands they HAVE to dress according to their rules or would be liable to be punished. Here in our homeland London, a while ago a murder escape from the UH dressed with these kind of clothing a nobody could stop him.
Now when for security reasons we will have to pass a kind of X ray body scanner, would they again be excepted to do it?
I fully support the position of the French government and I believe the British and the EU should back them. Probably they won't do it because businesses and commercial relations might be damaged.
In the late '70 at Old Brompton Rd. where I used to live I meet a latin america woman whom got a job as a housekeeper for an arab sheik but this guy used to walk around his home totally naked and order her to do the same, as her English or French was not good enough I ought to assist her and face the guy, calling to the flat he rented, took us a long time to make him understand that in this Country he should respect the law or when could deal this matter with ACAS,or the police. he then apologised to this lady and passed her an envelope with about one and a half grand
and in two days later he emptied the flat, this is the only experience that I personally experience with them.
Complain about this comment
I agree with #27 and #44,
France is quite right to ban the veil , as for multiculturism it was the MP`s who thought that one up without any referendum etc, but then this is why we are in the state we now are , its time we said like France loud and clear " this is our country if you want to live here and take part in building a life here , then our rules apply , we cannot go to any Islamic country and lay down rules ! how come they think its ok by us to do it in our country ? trouble is our MP`s are useless .
Complain about this comment
The French Government are finally taking a tough stance which once one European country does this more will follow. This is just the beginning to ensure they keep their own identity and their own culture. I for one am all for that.
The burka is just the tip of the iceberg, for too long other cultures have moved into western european countries and decided to create their own communites and want their own schools, and in the case of the UK want sharia law as part of the law in this country. Going down that route will only strengthen and increase right wing opinion not just in the Uk but throughout most of western europe.
If in a Muslim country a western woman wears shorts or a short skirt they are asked to cover their legs when going in public places we respect that because that is the culture of that country so why cannot those from a muslim faith who decided to go and live in another country show the same respect to that country.
If they don't like the laws in the country they have chosen to live in and in which that country has welcomed them then don't live there, it is pretty simple. The world is your oyster as they say.
Complain about this comment
All these Muslims go too wrong in their religious diversions.
Complain about this comment
136. At 9:50pm on 21 Jan 2010, @ Humanbeing
Actually no you are incorrect. The current president is not very popular. 74% is very much a cross party consensus of opinion regardless of presidential popularity. If it were only about political power it would have far less than 74% support.
The French are sensitive and thus sensible enough to want an item of oppression banned. If you don't like it tough. Get used to democracy. It is different to doctrine driven dictatorial religions.
A bag on the head. An oppressive device which insults intelligent women and men. Ban it.
Complain about this comment
I believe that France wants to ban the burka because they do not want to tolerate or promote a society where women are considered unequal.
Also, they likely don't want this kind of society to spread.
Muslim men do not wear the burka, only Muslim women, because they "tempt" them. Well, men "tempt" women just as much.
No other religion wears the burka, so only Muslim people are affected.
But I do not think a burka ban is about religion. A burka ban by France is about equality of women.
Complain about this comment
Moonwolf, No. 102:
You are sooo wrong when you refer to burka-clad women as "a community that is content not to be judged on looks." You have it exactly in reverse.
A woman wearing a burka is the property of a man. Her looks are reserved for his eyes only.
And in some extreme cases, not even for him: remember the case of the Saudi woman who divorced her husband of 50 years because he had the audacity of peeking behind her veil while she slept?
Any person who feels they cannot go out in public except completely hidden away from sight under many yards of cloth obviously is suffering from an affliction. Really. Either her own affliction -- or the affliction of the obsessive-compulsive male who controls her.
In some traditionalist religions (and no, I have never visited Israel, so I cannot comment on their bus etiquette; we are discussing the public spaces of Europe here, or, in this case, France), monastics take vows of silence, or even of seclusion from the world. Some go so far as to live in remote, austere dwellings, seeing only one person, or a few, and that at specific times.
Such actions are viewed as part of an Extreme act of devotion -- a huge sacrifice.
In most Muslim societies and far too many Muslim households, it is Expected of the girl child that from the age of five she will cover her head, or her face, or her head and face, or even her entire body, whenever she ventures forth beyond the family home.
Then, when she is "old enough to marry" (and in some Muslim communities that has been interpreted to mean when she is 9 or 10 years old), her father (or if he is not alive, an uncle, grandfather, male cousin even) will assign a husband for her, who will treat her as property.
The same expectations do not apply to boy children.
Girls grow up, from an early age, in this kind of all-enveloping tradition. From babyhood, they are told daily this is "the norm" -- even "God's explicit command for all females."
When Muslim families come to live in Europe, they come from all over the Muslim world. They come not only from advanced, educated environments well familiar with Western ways -- they also come from remote rural communities, tribal lands, places of limited contact with the outside world.
Unless you make it explicitly clear to the males who dominate these households that the rules in our lands are different, they import these traditions of subjugating women, of viewing girls as only half as good as boys, of treating women as property, into your own states. Most often, they marry their daughters to men from their own community (often to cousins, second cousins, third cousins) and thereby make sure the culture of keeping women submissive and right-less is perpetuated.
And they pass it on to the next generation.
There is nothing voluntary, charming, acceptable or worthy of nurturing about this kind of backward, hateful thinking that views half the human race as not completely equal to the part born male. It simply cannot be tolerated.
That it was viewed with tolerance by prior generations of non–Muslim males only tells you how comfortable far too many "civilised" men can become with attitudes that deprive women and girls of the most basic rights every single boy & man take for granted: the right to train in a profession of one's choice, the right to compete for income, the right to control income, the right to choose a companion for one's private life or even for marriage.
It makes no sense whatsoever to view women as having fewer rights than men. It is an utterly indefensible proposition. A girl or woman does not have to "prove she is good" to the world by putting on something special on her head, or body. You don't, do you?
Most Western women such as myself do not habitually dress to entice or "tempt" men. I wear my hair out because that is the cheapest, most comfortable way to wear it. Looks have nothing to do with it. Most women today do not step out of the house to go look for men to "snare" -- they are going about their business, trying to survive. It is the men who grow up in cultures where "a woman's place is in the home" that jump to the conclusion a woman outside must be some kind of predator on the prowl for a susceptible man. That is also part of the mindset that needs to be set straight. That is also why we cannot have some women walking around veiled as a matter of social doctrine, because what they are in fact saying is "an unveiled woman must be an indecent woman, since she is not an observant Muslim."
It is precisely by covering up religiously that we accentuate the "temptations" some imagine are present in bodily parts. But that is all nonsense. The body exists to allow the brain to go about its business. That's it. Adding unnecessary layers of garments simply makes that work more difficult to perform.
Complain about this comment
God save the Niqaab!!! Ameen
Complain about this comment
I am a white South African of British ancestry with Christian parents however, I was brought up in a very strong Zulu culture. In Zulu culture, women do not wear clothing on the upper half of the body. I moved to England 12 years ago. If we are to endorse freedom of dress, does this me I can follow my Zulu culture in England and go around topless without being arrested for public indecency? I now live in France, I have learnt to speak French and I am enjoying learning the true French way of life because this is the reason I moved here, not to be in a South African community in France. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. If you do not like the culture, beliefs and principals of a country, why move there. I would love to say lets free the world and let everyone live wherever they wish with no borders and restrictions but it will not happen in my lifetime, if ever.
Complain about this comment
This is cynical move by Sarko. Lest we forget he referred to inner city ghetto kids as 'scum' and called for them 'to be cleaned out with a power hose'. I can’t imagine that such comments would be acceptable in Britain and I dread to think what would happen if they were ever uttered. Same goes for the Burqa issue. Thankfully though, this is not France.
Complain about this comment
145. At 10:07pm on 21 Jan 2010, edezagon wrote:
"...Europe is a secular state/group of states. And this goes for any religion or group."
The UK is not a secular state. I believe it should be. I certainly think the bag on the head with eye holes, an instrument of oppression, should be banned.
Read this for information regarding lay states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laicité
Complain about this comment
Why should these peaceful women who are law abiding citizens be stripped of their rights to wear the veil!
why should they have to change their identity just so they can "integrate" in to society? just so they could make others happy.
There is no sufficient reason to why this BAN will have any benefit in fact it will only segregate... Separating the muslims from the rest of the community. IF WOMEN CHOOSE TO WEAR THE VIEL/ BURKHA THEN THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT!!!
i feel strongly about the fact people who are loyal citizens should be able to represent their identity and culture/faith.
This BAN is Pathetic.
THE VEIL HAS CAUSED NO HARM TO ANYONE!
Complain about this comment
No. 109, Moonwolf:
All over the country you love to praise (where I also live), there was a day last week when thousands if not millions of commuters boarded public transit in their skivvies.
Some thought it was charming. I thought it was unhygienic.
In classrooms where I teach, I insist underwear may not be showing and males may not wear their trousers dropped below their hips. It is unhygienic.
If my community were to pass a law saying: "You may not drive in a floor-length gown; you may not wear a floor-length coat or skirt on an escalator or a public sidewalk -- because it is unsafe or unhygienic" -- I would not feel any of my rights were being infringed.
The example you cite is ridiculous.
If laws were passed saying: we will no longer allow hair lacquer, nail lacquer, or lipstick to be sold or worn because of the environmental impact and possible health implications for women, I would not object.
Communities have a right to pass laws. Laws & customs that discriminate are wrong. But when it is a garment or garments that in fact make the discriminatory statement -- when an item of clothing exists whose net meaning is: "A woman is less than a man and so cannot be out in public view without hiding her hair, her face, or her entire body" -- that is the garment that needs to be banned.
It sends a message of intolerance, and for that reason may not be tolerated. It proseletyses the subjugation of women and their relegation to second-class, subhuman status.
Complain about this comment
If there was a religious society that stipulated that women were not allowed to go outdoors without a male guardian or be allowed to drive a car would we accept that on the grounds of multiculturalism? Apparently there are some countries that practice this in addition to the burka.
Complain about this comment
MrBlue: You do realize that there are Jewish courts in the UK that sit side by side with the British Courts system and Jews can choose to go to them for civil matters rather than British Courts, right?
Google the Beth Din.
"If they don't like the laws in the country" - There are no laws saying that it's illegal to wear the veil - yet. They're not breaking any laws, but a law is being written that's specifically aimed at them, enough that exclusions will be written into it to narrow it down even further.
I don't think there's any culture in existence that actually has a cultural prohibition against wearing a veil. Europe certainly doesn't, in case you've forgotten what a bridal gown traditionally looks like.
To be truly honest, any law against either religious or cultural dress should affect everyone. If this is *truly* about protecting France's culture, then everything *not* culturally French should be banned.
That means no wearing kilts outside of Scotland, no wearing nun's habits outside of the Vatican, no wearing Lederhosen outside of the Alps,
In the UK, it means outlawing shell suits - possibly a benefit the world would applaud.
When you craft a law so narrowly it only affects one small population like this one, it's by definition discriminatory.
This is a repeat of same attitudes that led to the Nuremburg Laws, and we know where that led Europe.
Complain about this comment
No. 131, Devon: Unless you believe your sister, your daughter, your mother and even your wife has the right to consort freely with any person, male or female, of her own choosing as a competent adult -- no, that is not enough "integration."
How you regard a woman, a girl -- the woman next door, your teacher, your colleague, your female superior or subordinate, or even the Queen -- is a lot more important than which football team you support.
Strange it should even have to be mentioned or explained!
Complain about this comment
Well done France and I agree with MrBlue and Maria Ashot, they tell it the way it is. Grow up people, this has nothing to do with religion, a phrase such as "when in Rome.." comes to mind.
Complain about this comment
So we permit the extreme immodesty of a drunken teenage girl in a skirt that barely covers her crotch and her knickers round her ankles, but we ban the extreme modesty of the burkha. How can one say that it's because the moslem dress doesn't fit the British cultural norm, when the micro-skirt was unknown to our culture only a few years ago? Times change, modes of dress change, adapt, adopt influences of other cultures and ethnicities.
If religious symbols are a problem in our secular society, should we then ban the nun's habit (hair covered), the wig of an orthodox jewess (hair covered) and the hat or kippah of her husband, or the sikh's turban? This campaign against the burkha is a barely disguised attack against one particular faith.
Britain has had appalling periods of religious persecution deep in its history. I hoped we'd grown past them.
Complain about this comment
#107 wrote "......Any ideology, any school of thought or belief system will only stand up to outside scrutiny if it is genuinely coherent. And yours, at least in the form in which you personally express it, does not hold up.
I have known some great Muslim scholars, including some very serious Muslim women. None of them had any need of hiding themselves under sacks of cloth, veiling their own or their daughter's heads.
This is 2010. Really and truly. Why do you dress the way you do when you obviously no longer travel by camel, donkey or in a palanquin carried by slaves" Quated!
JUST because one is muslim,Christian, Hindu, Jews or whatever, doesn't necessarily mean they follow the rule of the book. Wearing modestly for women is within all major religious text.Do every one follow it? Ofcourse not! There is wisdom behind it for those who understand.
This women takes this issue personal! Its is almost impossible for a man to approach a modest moman for his sexual desire outside marriage. Mary (mother of Jesus) used to wear modestly at all times and was unapproachable by man, when she broght Jesus to society she was accused of commiting adultery and was a shame.
Do western women are ashamed of adultury? yet they claim to love Mary and Jesus!
Rape among women who expose themselves is more likely than those who cover themselves. Children born with unknown/irresposible fathers is common among western women. IS THIS CIVILIZATION? There is so much good we can learn from people who look different. May be the benefit of that difference outweigh the consequences!
The real civilization is when the world used to go to Islamic Baghdad to learn how to operate brain, how to purifiy waste water, how to use algebra and so forth, that was more than 1000yrs ago.
After graduating from the society who taught the so called west, we now call that society uncivilized! What ignorance? Just because some don't like Veil, let others exercise their freedon of PERSONAL CHOICE!
LONG LIVE FREEDOM!!
Complain about this comment
MaudDib, @129
:o))))
MaudDib @129 , I liked that general :o))))
Here are more to you :o))))
(You know, I also like generals :o))) Come to think ab it :o))))
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_kRuHjTOF8
And here are more generals to you. :o)))) I also like generals :o))))
Complain about this comment
The spread of the Burkha is merely a manifestation of the spread of -fundamentalist- Islam. It is not welcome and does not belong here in Europe. The liberal democratic freedom loving west is in danger of being dragged backwards by the rise of fundamentalism. I refer also to fundamentalist Christians . (the intelligent design folks) All of these retrograde ideologies should be resisted strongly. If that means a seemingly anti-freedom ban on the burkha so be it.
Complain about this comment
#143. leiyla wrote:
"If a woman is more comfortable with a burka, that’s her prerogative! This is not a dictatorship. What next? You’ll ban the Sikh turbans? Get real."
Is there not something very basic that differentiates covering the eyes and mouth, as against the hair with a turban, that is so intrinsic and important to human communication? To feel safe most people like to see the faces of others close to them - it puts them at their ease and they feel that they can gain some indication from the look of the eyes and the facial expression that there is not latent hostility and danger present.
Just consider why criminals wear masks, from the highwayman's scarf to the bank robber's stocking over his head. The purpose is to hide or distort the facial features. The problem with the burka (and indeed any veil that obscures or indeed distorts the features) of the face is that the separation it engenders in those around the person wearing it. It engenders more fear (possibly irrationally) than does a full beard on a man - as that at least leaves the eyes visible. (This may explain why cultures that wear beards often do not have moustaches!)
We all live too close together on this planet (and there are already too many of us - but that is another problem!) and should we not seek to minimise the unease and discomfort of those around us? We all need to see the eyes and mouth of people we pass in the street - it is one of the way that makes us feel safe - that is the problem with all facial veils (and full beards too!) They increase the alienation of those around us. We should I think all show our faces (and shave!) to let the people we pass by know that they are safe and we are not a threat. (There is of course absolutely no need to show other parts of our bodies, also nudity or semi-nudity can also be perceived as a threat in an inappropriate situation.)
Complain about this comment
The problem with Europe right now, is that you have a growing Muslim or Islam sub-culture trying to live with in a culture that has been in place for years. The sad thing is, most people are too myopic to see the dangers of that sub-culture on European society at large. It's right around the corner... It's a reason I'm glad I don't live in the UK anymore.
Complain about this comment
157. At 10:28pm on 21 Jan 2010, kimjung wrote:
"...THE VEIL HAS CAUSED NO HARM TO ANYONE!"
NONSENSE. The number one reason for injury to women in some countries is falling over uneven ground due to not being able to see where they are walking. Try it for yourself.
What price modesty? Obviously common sense.
Complain about this comment
The self-delusion (and hubris I might add) is a bit overwhelming. Its a power issue. We MUST forcibly empower the women right? By law, you now MUST NOT wear what your belief system tells you you MUST wear. Only then will you be free to make the choice of what (not) to wear?..euh...
Sort of like being 'freed from tyranny' and 'brought democracy' at the point of a gun?
Complain about this comment
The ban will immediately reduce injuries due to being unable to see where a person is walking and increase vitamin D for those with a deficiency due to sunlight being blocked by religious mania.
Complain about this comment
I do think that the thinking of the French in this matter is right, trying to get rid of any subjugation of women, or anyone else, is the right thing to do. However, I fear that if this becomes law, the type of muslim husband who insists his wife wear the niqab, will just prohibit them from leaving the house rather than relent to her not wearing it.
Complain about this comment
It's a shame comments cannot be recommended on this blog. It would save many people from having to repeat what others have posted.
Complain about this comment
As long as something like a Burka is not harming others and someone does it out of individual choice, I do not see the harm. People should be allowed to wear whatever they want--however dumb it may look. I see people wearing the most ridiculous stuff everyday. Who is to say what is right and wrong to wear.
Glad I live in America, and not France. We have much more religious and personal freedom here.
Complain about this comment
Maria,
I think you're projecting.
Step back and listen to yourself. Where on earth have you come up with this all-encompassing set of theories?
You're conflating the behaviors and attitudes of a sub-set of a religion with that religion itself - and in doing so you're insulting every "moderate" Muslim, demeaning every "moderate" Muslimah and worse - deciding that their choices are totally invalidated purely because you disbelieve they might actually have any faith.
Who exactly is oppressing Muslim women and assuming their place in society here? Many people seem to be doing a pretty good job of totally disregarding anything that doesn't fit into their world view as being the result of cultural brainwashing, just as you personally "assumed" I must be a man because of my syntax!
In many ways, people are assuming the very same thing the men of that subset do - that they're Muslim women, therefore their opinions and thoughts and beliefs have no value whatsoever.
People certainly seem to give that impression when they poo-poo the motives of all muslim women as being "because" of their upbringing. "I'm right, you're wrong, simply because you're muslim women and I'm not.
Should I assume that every Christian woman is like the women of the WBC and they regularly get disciplined by being beaten by a pick-axe handle, and have to marry close relatives, just because they're Christian?
Should I assume every Christian woman is a fundamentalist Christian and therefore believe wives are beholden to and must submit to their husbands, purely because they *are* Christian?
As long as you refuse point blank to accept any possible reason other than your ideas as to why a woman would wear a veil, and as long as you keep having such a low opinion of the lots of women in general that you assume by default we're all repressed as you elaborated above, then I'm really sorry, but there's no point in debating this with you rationally.
I hope at least the fact your hideously erroneous assumption about my gender based on my linguistics shows you that your assumptions can be totally off the mark, and you apply some self-examination to some of your other assumptions and preconceptions here - where you were so wrong once, you can be so wrong elsewhere.
This isn't just an academic discussion we're all having here. This is about a law being passed that will affect people's rights by dictating to them what they can and cannot wear. This isn't about controlling behavior that is harmful to others, this isn't protecting someone's rights by curtailing the rights of another, this is pure and simple targeted discrimination of a religion in the name of "integration".
But I don't think the French want Muslims to integrate.
They want assimilated Muslims.
Complain about this comment
My friends little boy was absolutely terrified to see two burka clad shapes walking swiftly towards him that he got run over trying to avoid them (he did survive to tell his tale).
Complain about this comment
Yes, I think France would be right to ban the damn burka, it is well known that 75% or more of communication is not verbal, so they have no argument there, also I have no problem with different religious people displaying their faith in different ways, but to cover your whole body is rediculous as well as a security risk for people who would abuse it.
If I walked into my local town centre covered in black and with a mask covering my face like a ninja, I would be arrested in about 10 seconds and rightly so, why should these people get away with it. When in rome!
Complain about this comment
Well looks like the burqa is the most important issue in the world!! please lets get real and stop fussing over people's personal choices ,basically if they ban the burqa they will be isolating these women even more because they wont leave the house ..and so much for integration. Any practising muslim woman will not give up her beliefs because they are not man made and no man is forcing her to wear niqab or burqa. Really france should have more important issues like how to improve those who are under privileged or feel left out by the authorities
Complain about this comment
Multiculturalism is like grey squirrels and red squirrels.
Complain about this comment
It's entirlely to the person who's wearing burka. In God's name could you ask the person who is wearing it, i.e. is she wearing by her will or is she being forced to do so. Do we have double standards here that when a Western man or woman visits an Islamic country she/he are wearing their jeans & the crop tops & so on are ordered to wear hijab or that specific country's cultural dress? Why ARE WE CREATING COMPLEXITIES WHEN THEY ARE UTTERLY UNNECESSARY? If a western girl wants to be showing all her private bits, e.g wearing a g-string, or wearing a bikini on the High Street of a local town if you call it 'Freedom' then by all means keep it rolling, but at the same time you have some Catholic Nuns walking around within that same street covering just like those Muslim women (Modestly covered) in their Burkas, so what's bothering you? If a Western Woman is comfortable to let every John & Harry to lavish their eyes on their flesh then fine, those Burka women are not complaining or are they?
Forget about helmets or turbans (in Sikhs' cases)... it's nothing but double standards, it's nothing but open discrimination, it's nothing but usual misunderstanding being spread by a few haters and the general public in Western World don't have the initiative to get down to the facts.
Remember black people were not allowed in white people's areas? 350 million so called 'Shoodars', Dalits-Untouchables-the LOWEST CASTE HINDUS in India are not allowed to visit places beyond their slums because according Hindusism in their previous life they were the sinners & now they cursed in this life so they unholy-dirty and they should be denied all basic HUMAN RIGHTS in this millennium. Are we kidding ourselves or just turning a blind eye to the real issues on hand. According the to report only 1900 women are observing burka in France, so why they should be a threat to French? Come on get a life, 'Live & let others live'.
To any civilised & an literate individual with little sense it's quite apparant it's nothing but hypocrisy. We have serious issues in this world than a burka worn by 1900 women in France.
And in regards with to acquire a citizenship of a particular state, one has to quit on his/her cultural, religious beliefs then it's my meagre understanding that yes we are heading back to 'Stone Age' or shall I be more liberal and refer it to the 'Dark Ages'. Why are we becoming so narrow minded? My message to Sarkozy is 'Get a life Mate...'?
Complain about this comment
The fact that France is a secular state implys that religous freedoms
lie outside the states juristiction,ie the state does not interfere in
areas it does not recognise.Fromnow on the state must decide who wears what,
are they doing so by free will or not?,a dangerous precedent is being set..
Complain about this comment
No. 140, Moonwolf:
Ah, so you are a woman. Fascinating. And not actually surprising: you walked into that one all by yourself.
So you are a woman who is upset about feminism.
All the more reason why you would defend the burka, veiling, and keeping women "safely" "in their place."
For the record, I am not a feminist -- not in the conventional sense, at least.
I am profoundly offended by the premise that any child ever born on earth can be stereotyped by anyone else, told to shut up & sit down, controlled, subjugated and denied rights.
And I believe that when someone -- especially a woman -- defends garments designed to differentiate between "righteous women" and "impious women" that person is perpetuating the stereotyping and isolation of all kinds of human beings, most notably girls and women, on the basis of their appearance.
It is still hate speech, even when a woman is making the statement, or defending it. And it directly infringes on my own personal rights, as well as my daughter's.
Keep your devotional expressions within the property lines of your house of worship, or your home -- or inside your head -- as I do.
Complain about this comment
If these people want to integrate into western society then they need to adopt those ideals, I would not move to russia and demand and pint of English ale, I would sample what they had on offer ! When in rome do as romans do! Either that or go home.
Complain about this comment
Really, some of the comments on here astound me.
The facts consistently show that most of the people wearing the burqa are young Muslims, often unmarried. This is pointed out in the article by Economist listed by an earlier commentor. One might argue that these women are being 'forced' and 'brainwashed' by their parents. While some, a few, may be, the fact remains that many come from rather secular backgrounds, often where the parents encourage otherwise and they wear the burqa almost as a rebellion. And if I may, I would like to correct a very common mistake; if a man was considered 'religious' he would not be forcing his wife to do anything. However, domestic violence and intimidation is still a problem, and I think we should definitely focus on these issues more.My point is that the burqa is hardly the problem. I would like to exemplify Aasiyah Hasan (I believe that is the name?), wife of Muzzammill Hasan. The sotry of his cruel treatment of her which ended up in him killing her was widely publicized. Hasan was previously married and some of his previous wifes aso spoke of his domestic abuse. One might find it interesting that Hasan did not force his wife to wear the burqa, or even the veil. She did not wear either. This goes to prove that the burqa is not the problem.
I happen to find it funny when people compare this to women being forced to wear the veil in Saudi. Basically they are contradicting themselves; they are saying that the French are just sinking to the heights of the Saudis, who are a monarchy, by telling peope what they can and cannot wear.
Complain about this comment
174 "Glad I live in America, and not France. We have much more religious and personal freedom here."
Absolutely, you can carry your Magnum 44 and Semi-Automatic under your burka. The land of the free. Now what happened to those pesky indians...
Complain about this comment
Also, I would like to agree with LeBlanc....I am proud to be an American, a place where one can practice whatever creed or religion they choose.
Complain about this comment
Tarantoes
I go out in my chair, I get people diving either out of the wsy, into the way, or tharning in fear. I believe the situation in the UK with people being terrified of wheelies got so great they made a law forcing chairs to go slower than a toddler.
Should powerchairs be banned as a result of the terror they strike in people too?
Oh wait - the UK's already thinking of that one. My bad.
Is it any wonder kids would be terrified or veiled women, if their parents happen to say the sorts of things we've seen here? It says a lot more about your friend than it does about the veil.
Muslim women might be conditioned by an early age by their parents - but that's not limited to just one faith, gender, or region - even if in Europe it's more likely for kids to be taught by TV.
Here's a fun one for discussion - if you don't like multi-culturalism, go move to a country that shares your views, like Russia or Bosnia.
What? If people can say that about Muslims, why can't I say it about ultra-nationalists?
Complain about this comment
I understand how an outsider looking in may consider burkas "simply a prison for women who wear it" - but what about the woman want to wear one? what about their "freedoms"?
Complain about this comment
xyz:
The traditional method online has been "karma points" ...
Like what someone says, you'd do this: xyz++
Don't like? xyz--
Of course, this is purely a cultural phenomenon used by those of us who were around online before Tim Berners-Lee invented the Internet (or Al Gore did, depending on who you ask), and of course should immediately be banned as it's obviously an attempt to enforce a foreign cultural standard on the majority (who don't know who Tim Berners-Lee *or* Al Gore are).
I'll demonstrate *and* start the ball rolling (which is multi-tasking, if not multicultural)
Imran Khan++
Complain about this comment
148. At 10:09pm on 21 Jan 2010, MrBlue wrote:
The French Government are finally taking a tough stance which once one European country does this more will follow. This is just the beginning to ensure they keep their own identity and their own culture. I for one am all for that.
The burka is just the tip of the iceberg, for too long other cultures have moved into western european countries and decided to create their own communites and want their own schools, and in the case of the UK want sharia law as part of the law in this country. Going down that route will only strengthen and increase right wing opinion not just in the Uk but throughout most of western europe.
If in a Muslim country a western woman wears shorts or a short skirt they are asked to cover their legs when going in public places we respect that because that is the culture of that country so why cannot those from a muslim faith who decided to go and live in another country show the same respect to that country.
If they don't like the laws in the country they have chosen to live in and in which that country has welcomed them then don't live there, it is pretty simple. The world is your oyster as they say.
I must admit I completely agree with everything you have said.
We should all be able to live together but, as it stands to do that you have to respect the laws and morals that the country you decide to live in abides by. If you dont like it then go somewhere else, the world is a big place.
Complain about this comment
Doesn't this go against the whole point of freedom of expression, how can we ban an item of clothing based on what it represents to some people? Punk culture is pretty opposed to mainstream culture but no one has tried to ban mohicans.
Surely if the French government thinks the burka is a prison then they should be endeavoring to change the cultural attitude underlying it rather than punishing the prisoners by fining them and denying them citizenship?
Complain about this comment
I really would not want the UK to follow France on this issue. We are a country of freedoms and a country with a proud and tolerant multi-cultural legacy. France, unfortunately often fails on the latter.
The problem is that many of the freedoms and principles which protect the rights of women to wear burkas, ironically, are not respected by those who would benefit by them.
I think it is now time to realise that the social attitudes promoted by many religious groups is divisive and puts many fundamental freedoms at risk.
The solution? Well perhaps the first step is to regarded these extreme view to be "sociably unacceptable" in just the same way drunk driving or wife beating are.
Complain about this comment
Would be good to hear from a woman on here who wear's a burka to hear her views ?
Complain about this comment
It appears to me that only females of this culture are required to wear burka..and this is requirement of the males.. .. these women dont know any different. if it was left to them, and everything being equal.. can you imagine a french woman wanting to appear metaphorically in chains..
How can a woman be expected to be immersed in society, with such restrictions on her, only to be revealed to her family.. this is truly "isolation", and "control".. two of the classic ways to domestic abuse. You cannot communicate with a burka.. sorry..
Complain about this comment
Maria your comments are definitely from thinking deeply and from your world view. Just remember one thing everyone, some things (ideologies) do not change... ever. There are some statements that totally change a person in the other direction while some increase their opposition to that idea. To dwell into any matter you have to "feel" it and that will never happen if you don't want to no matter how much a person explains it to you. I respect your understanding and views and wish your view on any Islamic concept is respectful. I may sound very biased as supporting the Islamic practices and all but believe me, I agree with some of the things you say but it's just that they need to be explained to whoever doesn't understand them. Many ideas have been mentioned here but none can convince as just some text comments can rarely change an opinion. It's everyone's choice (logically) to study a concept/idea or religion and then decide while what people say will just help out a little.
All this seems like just boring,unnecessarily exaggerated, brainwashed and silly comments but remember just this one statement which will again make negative sense unless one gains knowledge about it her/himself,
"The world will never be complete (in peace,actions,socially,politically etc) without guides who are perfect in their totality (knowledge,wisdom,skills,behaivour etc)after which every being will understand and be more than happy to live under these divine guides CHOSEN by the All-Perfect Being, God"
Complain about this comment
"If you were to do your research, males and females are actually considered equal before God."...Really?.. So then can you explain to me why Islamic women are not allowed to pray side by side with men inside a mosque?.. The key point many apologists for the burqa and the niqab fail to acknowledge is that these garments are a form of segregation. They are worn to segregate women from males who are not their husband or relatives.
When people are truly free then there is no need for segregation. Segregation exists only to oppress people on the pretense that its is for their own "good".
Complain about this comment
Moonwolf, No. 175:
I am not projecting at all. Maybe I have a broader range of experience than you. Maybe I have done more research. Maybe I actually know more Muslims.
Maybe I have witnessed the things I describe. I have studied Islam, as many regular readers know.
All traditionalist religions have a preference for assigning marriages, and trying to keep as much of the property & clan cohesion within as narrow a circle as possible. This is true of Muslims, of Mormons, of Jews, of many fundamentalist Christians, of Hindu dynasties, of other religious communities as well.
Cousin marriages are by no means unique to Muslims.
They are not widespread, except in some tribal areas, but they are more prevalent than many people realise.
That is anthropology & ethnography, not projection. And yes, it does perpetuate all kinds of unhealthy behaviours, as well as doctrines.
Muslims who choose to live outside predominantly Muslim countries should be prepared to experience scrutiny & even evaluation of their compatibility with the dominant non-Muslim society they choose to inhabit. Post-9/11, post-3/11, post-7/7, post-Beslan, such scrutiny should be taken in stride: it has been invited by the extremist factions that somehow or other Muslim leaders still cannot bring themselves to rein in, repudiate or denounce.
Muslim extremism is the single biggest obstacle to peace in the Holy Land. The. Single. Biggest. Obstacle.
The inability of Muslims to look at themselves, their history and the great gap between what they contribute to others & what they demand of others is also the single biggest obstacle to Turkey's aspirations for the EU.
Comparing Muslim terrorists to the IRA terrorists also won't work: the conflict within Irish communities, the atrocities perpetrated against British people everywhere, were much more limited in scope, and spanned many years less, than the efforts of Muslims hell-bent on exterminating "infidels".
No Catholic or Protestant of our time wants a global jihad or a global caliphate with Shariah law. No one today is leading an army to impose the tyranny of a Pope or even a nutjob like Pat Robertson.
Muslims have a hard time looking honestly at themselves and seeing what others see. We cannot do this job for you. You have to learn how to do it yourselves.
I know, from visiting many websites where Muslims & ex-Muslims do write in criticism of fundamentalist Islam, that there are people from your communities today who do in fact recognise the problem, its roots, and also the way forward.
Undoubtedly, their voices will gather strength. That is the necessary path for human survival. Again: not a projection of any personal perversion, but simple Logic: Tribalism is incompatible with the modern age, its processes, its exigencies, its challenges.
Whether a child is born in a Bedouin community, an Uighur community, an Amish community, a Haitian tent city: boy or girl, it should be free to live its life with as few constraints as my children have experienced. And with as many comforts, freedoms & conveniences. It has every single right and privilege they have, in the eyes of God.
Complain about this comment
Can I just say to all the muslims out there frantically posting passages from the quran praising so called 'modesty' in females...
I in common with many people don't feel more clothes = better more pious more pure person!
Again this debate highlights the difference in point of views between people. Making superficial judgements that a veiled up female is somehow pious and pure exists only in your minds....Many other people make no such link. There is no correlation between good behaviour or thought and more clothing !
Complain about this comment
Good on the French.
Cours le Englaise
Complain about this comment
matt:
64 & 117
Complain about this comment
Regarding the motorbike helmet/veil comparison.
Assuming someone has got off their motorbike it makes no sense to continue to wear the helmet. Someone who did enter a bank wearing their helmet could reasonably be assumed to be up to no good.
But someone wearing a full veil entering a bank could still be up to no good. The fact that many people may choose to wear a full veil doesn't change the fact that others could use the veil to disguise their identity when committing a crime.
When I'm on my bike I wear a cycling helmet. If I get off my bike to visit a shop I don't take the helmet off - it's easier to leave it where it is than to fuss with it. But if I cycled to the bank I'd respect the fact that the need for my identity to be known is greater than the marginal convenience of leaving my cycling helmet in place.
In the same way I don't see any reason why a woman shouldn't wear a veil in public in general, but should be required to remove it in situations where security is a concern. If she is not willing to reveal her face in a place like a bank then, like the person refusing to remove a helmet, we might wonder why she will not let her true identity be revealed.
Complain about this comment
A few years ago I decided that the "free west" was a self serving euphemism employed by entertainment fundamentalists, and this thread reinforces that conviction.
To explain the term, I define an entertainment fundamentalist as someone who must be entertained in order to have peace with themselves. In this way, the need for entertainment displaces the need for religion. And so when we experience folks getting excited and making grand statements about how the world should be everywhere, all based on the entertainment they demand to enjoy, I suppose the correct term for these folks is that they are "entertainment fundamentalists".
Now Maria Ashot is, with the greatest of respect, an entertainment fundamentalist. She makes grand statements about how others live an how they ought to live, but she bases her reasoning only on issues best described as mere entertainment.
Nobody could seriously suggest that Maria's feminism is diligent political analysis. She has hardly broken down the issue into its constituent political parts. Rather than look at the political economy of the burka, or indeed of Islamic society and Sharia law, she has instead decided to focus upon the simplistic worldview of the raging feminist.
Now maria is hardly ignorant, nor is she dim. She is an intelligent, articulate woman. Furthermore, I know she understands financial and legal issues to a very fine degree, and I know she appreciates that the world has a great many powerful and wealthy Muslim women.
So when she ignores the political economy of the harem, I feel she must be doing so deliberately. Therefore I suggest she is not serious, and, like most feminists, she is only involved in the debate for the sake of entertainment.
Which is all fine and fun, and her right, but when she then makes grand statements about how others ought to live, I feel she has strayed away from a mere love of entertainment, and has become an entertainment fundamentalist.
Maria understands that Sharia law is unfair to poor women. But she fails to examine whether it is equally unfair to poor men. Maria understand that rich muslim men are able to exploit poorer muslims, but she ignores the fact that rich muslim women also exploit poorer muslims.
In short, Maria fails to examine the whole political economy of the subject, and yet she feels able to make statements about how folks should live.
I find that curious.
The reader will note that muslim women on this thread are offended by Maria's assumptions about their motives and their beliefs. This is hardly surprising to me, as I have had professional interaction with wealthy muslim women. In my position, as their servant, it has always served me well to treat wealthy muslim women as both highly intelligent and highly aggressive financial actors. That is how they see themselves, and one does not wish to cause offense and denigrate folks for the sake of half baked western feminism.
In short, I would agree with everything Maria says about the human rights abuses in Islamic society, with one caveat: I blame the Muslim women. I especially blame the mothers.
Mothers have a profound effect on society. The jesuits claim to be able to deliver the man if they have the child for seven years, but who delivers the jesuits to our happy family of believers? Their mothers, surely. In every society, mothers have nearly exclusive access to the children during their early years. They indoctrinate the children in their most formative stage of development, and hence it is very profound advantage for any culture that mothers are literate. Literate mothers beget highly literate children, and we can leave the jesuits out of the matter.
And so, on a large scale, we can understand the massive advantages that flow to societies on this good earth where the mothers are highly literate. Children grow up to do fine work, such as building nuclear bombs and attack helicopters. Where the mothers are not literate, the children do not have such esteemed careers. They rent out oil wells to foreign corporations, and cater to mules. That sort of thing.
But if this is the advantage and the power of mothers, in broad cultural terms, then who is logically to blame when a class based society, such as a theocracy, prevents the widespread education of mothers?
Should we blame men? Or should we blame their mothers?
My own view, having dealt with the mothers, is that we must blame the mothers. Blaming the men might be fun, but it is pointless. Nothing will ever change blaming the men. Ask the jesuits.
When one deals with the financial concerns of wealthy muslim women, and when one understand the political economy of the harem, it becomes hugely obvious that muslim women of considerable financial and political means are exceedingly well served by having illiterate mothers in the lower classes.
If the sultans' mother allowed the sultans concubines to become educated, then her own child would need to compete against children who were able to read, and human nature being what it is, the children would read all sorts of revolutionary literature, and no doubt before long they would challenge the political structure of the harem.
That is how it goes, when children learn to read. First they read what they are told to read, then they read all sorts of radical things. Unless they are punished or brainwashed, they will likely show a great interest in understanding how and why things happen. They will study the political economy of social systems, and they will question how they can do better within the political economy they call home.
Now in the west, we do not study the political economy of the law, and indeed we are indoctrinated to find the political economy of the law taboo. The political economy of the law is dismissed as the antithesis of entertainment, and that which does not entertain is taboo. I am transgressing this taboo right now, but as maria and marcus will both tell you all, I am a hopeless and pathetic heretic. there is nothing can be done for folks like me.
But a politician proposing a law banning a foreign religious symbol, THAT is entertaining. Someone might get hurt, there might be a big fight. Cool stuff. Tune in for some emotional titillation. Be entertained, and get closer to that which replaced god. Feel the soothing buzz? That is the certainty of your mortality being diffused for a moment.
And for the journalist, which is what we call a corporate priest in the church of entertainment fundamentalism, the idea of reporting on the issue of such a ridiculous law is equally appealing. Both politicians and journalists need to entertain, so the prospect of making a big fuss over a law likely to inflame passions and cause conflict is highly attractive.
And so we are all entertained. PBUE.
But for those heretics who still wish to think, and to understand why stuff happens, I would cite the common law trust as an excellent place to begin some deep and productive inquiry.
the trust, which is essentially a mechanism of ruling from the grave and controlling children, was adopted into the common law not long after it had been banned by Henry the 8th. Before henry, it was known as the "use". Before it became known as the "use" in western law, it is theorized, it was known as the "waqf" in Islamic law.
Yes indeed, the political economy of the ruling class of common law families comes to us from those enlightened muslim mothers.
Now some may argue that islamic succession law was the creation muslim men, but I need only remind you all the women have a significant biological advantage over men, in the realm of family succession law: they live longer.
And hence I say, with deep regret, that we must blame the mothers for the political economy favoured by the sons.
Complain about this comment
The way I see it, God wants everyone to be happy on earth, I dont believe that wearing a burka (or any other type of clothing) will make any difference to how he views you. It is your actions in life that define who you are not what you wear or whether you go to church, or face mekka everyday, it is all the same. God is all around you, every where you look, in the trees in the sky, in the earth, you do not need to use these stupid tokens of faith.
As for the burka issue I dont believe that god would want his creation to be hidden.
Complain about this comment
Let's see if I have this correct; the French want to ban the burqa in public. It was not disaffected immigrants from north Africa, but rather unemployed youth who rioted in Paris a few years ago. Can we stop the political correctness that has invaded all of our societies and acknowledge that as different people and their beliefs cross borders, they alarm, then in many cases attempt to replace the existing culture? In the US, the "illegal alien problem" is one culture moving in and taking advantage of the liberal policies of the host society. Often, these people have no wish to become part of the resident society. Every European country has the same social problem presented by the influx of foreigners.who insist on retaining their cultural identity rather than adapting to their new home. I believe the fear of such people is called xenophobia. The French, as hosts, should have the right to regulate their society just as the Saudis do theirs. American politicians will soon learn that their established society will no longer tolerate the social incursions the French are rejecting.
Complain about this comment
Maria:
Just not the right to choose to dress how they choose, if you happen to disagree with what they choose.
An yes, I put all terrorists on the sane level. There is no degree - Ask anyone who was in OKC and at WTC if they think there is.
The only reason anyone makes the distinction is because they're uncomfortable with having to acknowledge there are Christian terrorists - a lot of them financed by the US, through Boston and NWC and Philly bars.
Please stop trying to rehabilitate the Christian terrorist.
Complain about this comment
As Maria wrote so eliquently above :
Whether a child is born in a Bedouin community, an Uighur community, an Amish community, a Haitian tent city: boy or girl, it should be free to live its life with as few constraints as my children have experienced. And with as many comforts, freedoms & conveniences. It has every single right and privilege they have, in the eyes of God.
Complain about this comment
MA #165
Excellent...the brothers here at home would be proud. Is there some connection between Greeks, Irish and Russians. There must be a genetic link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W22gpBv00gg
Complain about this comment
What a formula!
CHOOSE to wear the niqab and you are OPPRESSED
BE FORCED not to wear it and you are LIBERATED
???
Complain about this comment
If someone wanted to bring a concealed suicide bomb into a crowd, hiding it under a burkha would be a great way to do it.
Complain about this comment
I see some of my comments have been referred to the moderator, although they were neither insulting nor dishonest.
Who objects to my pointing out that men's sexual abuse of women is a crime? It's not caused by women "provoking" attack by showing their hair or their face. Ruling that men should not attack women who meet mediavel standards of "modesty" (therefore, implicitly, it's fine to attack women who wear normal 21st century dress) is a woman-hating ideology. And women who go along with this put other women in danger, by tacitly agreeing that they are inviting attack.
Complain about this comment
Taciturnus, @125
I agree, but it is not easy to reason. Saw "muslim"'s post 121 and 132?
That's the language one has to speak to convince. I'm afraid some additional chapters will have to be added to Koran then :o)))))
Complain about this comment
WA
This is better one. Note the little peacock in the white shirt is an American.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py2TiFsq9T0
Complain about this comment
As a feminist I disagree with the idea of the burka, that women should be required to cover themselves so completely. However, the idea that the decision should be legally ripped from a woman's hands seems abhorrent. It is acceptable for women to show almost all of their flesh and yet not to cover it up?!
I do not deny that there are women that are forced to wear the things, but exactly how does banning the burka help them exactly? If their family/husband is determined they must be covered up all we condemn them to is never being able to leave the house.
The fact that only an estimated 1900 women wear one begs the question why is a law necessary exactly. Such a law sounds like more a token act of appeasement to public opinion, rather than anything near the worthwhile action Xavier Bertrand would like to present it as.
Complain about this comment
Moonwolf :
I accept what you say, except that the examples arent valid, you cannot compare a person wearing high healed shoes to someone who wears an outfit that completely conceals there identity.
You are obviously an honest person, but many in this world are not, we cannot allow people to walk around anonymously. If you want to wear something on your head or even a tattoo or anything that doesnt completely hide your identity Im all up for it. But me for instance , If I walked around completely disguised, I would be arrested and so I should be. There will always be people apart from your faith who will use it and abuse it for there own ends, its the world we are living in.
Complain about this comment
I sincerely believe it is an insult to women to wear burka.In Koran mohammad has said"women must guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them". Mohammad had nine wives and lots of slaves girls.Islam corresponds to feudalism.In Iran when you get on the bus women sit on one side and men the other.This is sexual apparthied.If religious police(of burka wearing women or bearded men)sees a young unmarried couples in parks or streets they would arrest them.My sisters have been arrested several times for wearing make ups.All of these is because Islams considers women inferior to man.Common guys we live in 2010 not in fifth century.Although I dont support Sakozi's platform neverthless i agree on this point:Burka should be banned for ever.
Complain about this comment
I've traveled the world and respect all cultures, not just respect, I enjoy the experiences and finding common ground with local people. However, I remember my first long haul flight to the Maldives from the UK, on arrival I had to surrender any religious material including rosary beads, I didn't have these, but i did have alcohol which was also prohibited, so handed that in. I got it back when I left, but the fact is, I agreed to the laws of the country, I didn't even see any local women during my time there as they stay indoors. If France wants to ban the Burka, let them, if practising Muslims don't agree go somewhere that allows them the freedom. I have emigrated from the UK now as it it is a grey country with grey politics, I wish they could have the strength to enforce a law they feel the people of the country all agree with. Its called majority rule, not minority.
Complain about this comment
I was brought up for a while in Pakistan, and my wife is a Pakistani.
I keep wondering why it is that I am seeing more women wearing the burka in north London than I did in Rawalpindi?
- And, neither my wife nor I can ever remember seeing a teacher in Pakistan wearing a Burka.
It is almost as out of place there as the uncomprehending western girl I saw wearing a mini skirt at Islamabad airport.
When in Rome do as ......
Complain about this comment
Regarding the motorbike helmet/veil comparison.
Assuming someone has got off their motorbike it makes no sense to continue to wear the helmet. Someone who did enter a bank wearing their helmet could reasonably be assumed to be up to no good.
But someone wearing a full veil entering a bank could still be up to no good. The fact that many people may choose to wear a full veil doesn't change the fact that others could use the veil to disguise their identity when committing a crime.
When I'm on my bike I wear a cycling helmet. If I get off my bike to visit a shop I don't take the helmet off - it's easier to leave it where it is than to fuss with it. But if I cycled to the bank I'd respect the fact that the need for my identity to be known is greater than the marginal convenience of leaving my cycling helmet in place.
In the same way I don't see any reason why a woman shouldn't wear a veil in public in general, but should be required to remove it in situations where security is a concern. If she is not willing to reveal her face in a place like a bank then, like the person refusing to remove a helmet, we might wonder why she will not let her true identity be revealed.
Agree! If we are all subject to constant CCTV why should women or men be any different.
Complain about this comment
Yes .sense at last
Complain about this comment
Banning things seldom works but it should be an inalienable right that anyone can refuse to have dealings with another who refuses to divulge their identity (face and hair) in physical, "face to face" (pun intended) situations. This right should rest with the individual too, not his or her employer. This isn't just about security it is about mutual trust and respect and common standards and values between all citizens irrespective of religious belief.
A group of people of like mind may hold a religious belief that we are created naked and that it is a sin to don clothes as it is not how God intended us to be. Should they be allowed to hold that view and impose it on everyone else? If not, why not? Presumably because it would be offensive to most people within our society. They would be at liberty to go naked in private though. Sometimes we have to sacrifice our personal beliefs in public situations. This is one of those issues.
Complain about this comment
they should try this in the UK. Edgware Road would be empty.
Complain about this comment
I sort of support this ban.
I think that people should be free to wear what they want walking down the street, however no person should wear a niquab at a bank, airport, court room or other institutions wear a person could not wear say a helmet or even a big hat.
Complain about this comment
Damn I think my posts are being edited lol !
Still most of what i said above is true.
I must say again tho :
The way I see it, God wants everyone to be happy on earth, I dont believe that wearing a burka (or any other type of clothing) will make any difference to how he views you. It is your actions in life that define who you are not what you wear or whether you go to church, or face mekka everyday, it is all the same. God is all around you, every where you look, in the trees in the sky, in the earth, you do not need to use these stupid tokens of faith.
As for the burka issue I dont believe that god would want his creation to be hidden.
And i do also agree with :
In the same way I don't see any reason why a woman shouldn't wear a veil in public in general, but should be required to remove it in situations where security is a concern. If she is not willing to reveal her face in a place like a bank then, like the person refusing to remove a helmet, we might wonder why she will not let her true identity be revealed.
Complain about this comment
214 Moonwolf have to agree !
Complain about this comment
Why can't women choose to wear whatever they like, walking down the street and then comply with rules in places where identity or recognition is required, such as airports, banks, schools.
As a British woman, I'm sure I wouldnt be offended if asked to cover up my hair in the appropriate setting - anywhere in the world. Just as I'm sure most Muslim women would oblige if asked to show their face in a bank, if that's what is required. They could even ask for a female bank employee or work in an all girls school. Whats the problem?
I dont see the abuse of women as a solid argument against the burka either. Women are abused in every culture, we should have help avaliable that is adaptable to any circumstance of mistreatment and stop worrying about people who have no need for it.
Complain about this comment
To my brothers and sisters who say that the veil makes a bad contribution to the French society. One stat: France appear in the top 10 when it comes to the number of rapes commited each year per country. Many women CHOOSE to veil themselves in Saudi Arabia and many other countries and Saudi Arabia are not even the top 50 ( i couldnt find where saudia arabia appeared because they weren't in the standings!)
So veil a negative contribution or positve? for you to decide
Complain about this comment
No its called Democracy!
Reza! Im glad you spoke out, because you are exactly what I was looking for in Muslim women, to take ownership for themselves and stop bowing down to this faith that is so damning to women, women and men are equal, everybody knows this except the fundamentalists who preach your faith.
Complain about this comment
It will be extremely difficult to outlaw face covering apparel , But to refuse entry into public buildings , events , or areas where the possibility of criminal activity might occur then it should be a law. I can't even walk into a bank with a hood or hat or sunglasses to help conceal my face or my eyes from the bank security anywhere in the USA, and definitely all public buildings should have the same policy.
Complain about this comment
Hey check post 217
I was brought up for a while in Pakistan, and my wife is a Pakistani.
I keep wondering why it is that I am seeing more women wearing the burka in north London than I did in Rawalpindi?
- And, neither my wife nor I can ever remember seeing a teacher in Pakistan wearing a Burka.
It is almost as out of place there as the uncomprehending western girl I saw wearing a mini skirt at Islamabad airport.
When in Rome do as ......
AGREE !
Complain about this comment
215 good job !
Complain about this comment
Moonwolf @187
bzzt, sorry, wrong answer, try again :o))))))))))))
("if you don't like multi-culturalism, go move to a country that shares your views, like Russia.
What? If people can say that about Muslims, why can't I say it about ultra-nationalists?)
Why are we Russians suddenly "ultra-nationalists" eh?
Thank you very much within the 86 or whatever it is plus minus 2 constituencies of the Russian Federation there are heaps of ultra-nationalists of all nationalities :o))))) and all types (wearing you can't imagine what :o)))) to their personal liking) and feeling absolutely superior to all 87 absolutely wrong other Russians around :o))))
Since we are still all alive together somehow, (and even , as I heard recently, St. Petersburg for example got the Europe
s prize as the most tolerant capital of Europe) (and M-me Clinton was visiting recently all-muslim Kazan/Republic of Tatarstan to see for herself the wonder, how do Russian Orthodox and Muslims manage together in awesome peace (so far :o))))) in the all-mulsim Republic (one of those 86 plus/minus). And nobody LOL could explain the trick to her. I am afraid if she'd ask and got honest answers both the Russians and the Muslims there would have said "we are the best - them - ah, what to say!" - and so what? we are all absolutely the best it doesn't mean you should terrorise others who are poor darlings not "absolutely the best" but have compassion for them :o))))) for being all so totally wrong :o)))))
I guess that's the trick.
Complain about this comment
Mrs Gerrard you seem to be saying that some of these women will be held prisoner in their own homes by their husbands or the husband will insist on escorting them on any shopping trips. Now for a husband to push the trolley in supermarket is no bad thing, maybe he will also do school run but acting as your wife's jailer, may not go down so well. You say some women feel secure behind veil, not being allowed out will make them even more secure. They is no case on record of any women coming to harm because some man looked at her face. It is not complex and not delicate, being forced by your husband to stay at home is simply in human. Why not pop round to see your neighbour's husband and have quite word is his ear, point out that women now have the vote and maybe he should stay at home. Of cause, staying at home means he will have to give up his job and all social contact, but at least it will keep satan at bay. By the way if you do pop round make sure you are covered up.
Complain about this comment
I am surprised by majority of people commenting on two issues no 1 that due to women wearing niqab is somehow unequal suggesting in Islam there is no equality no 2 that women wearing niqab is a prisoner. Vast majority of these women who wears this niqab do so to please there creator.
Now imagine for a moment you have two couple walking down the street of London 1 male 1 female both wearing just a short and nothing els now if a police officer happen to see them is it not a fact that the police is likely to arrest the female for indecent exposure and no action will be taken against the male yet they are equally dressed this suggest that what Islam says is man and women are equal but not identical the quran 1st speak of hijaab for men to cover there bodey from navel to the knees that is considered to be private parts of a male then it speak of hijaab for women there whole body except hands and face as the prophets wife wore the face covering that’s why some scholars suggest wearing the full niqab. they have equal rights sins 1300yers back women in Islam has enjoyed owning there own property unlike christen women who had no such religious rights .now ponder on this Islam says do not rape Hinduism says do not rape Christianity says do not rape but look at Islam it shows you how to prevent this hideous crime 1st it tells the men to maintain there hijaab and lower there gaze if they happen to see a female they must lower there gaze a very practical law I would ask the French to look at the ills of society and have a practical law to rid the ills of society rather then making these women prisoners in there own homes yes if they feel very strong about there belief these poor women will be prevented from leaving there homes .
MSI
Complain about this comment
Being Australian, which has its own racial issues but still remains a pluralistic, open society, I cannot understand this attempt to force individuals to 'fit in'.
While assimilating into a society is a worthwhile endeavour, making legislation about dress wear of individuals will do nothing more than humiliate and anger those who are already probably feeling alienated and no pompous Sarkozian speech regarding "shared imaginations" really seems to make sense beyond a fear of invading hordes of "uncivilized" and foreign people.
In a republic founded on enlightenment principles, where is the tolerance of a very small number of individuals who don a garb that fits into their "imagination" of the world even if it is incompatible with smoking gauloises, eating fromage and drinking out of over sized coffee cups.
Shame on those who hide behind their own mask of "civlization" to justify their own prejudice and fears.
Complain about this comment
Maria:
---
And it directly infringes on my own personal rights, as well as my daughter's.
---
I sincerely hope that class you claim to teach doesn't include civics, because if an *idea* infringes on *your* rights, then you've not only missed the point of the First Amendment, you've also forgotten one of the major reasons behind the founding of the United States - Freedom from religious persecution.
And your research seems to be sorely lacking regarding Muslim leaders - Perhaps you might go back and research ibn Baaz's declaration of bin Laden as Khawariij - Muslim leaders have been speaking out, just people with their minds already made up haven't been listening (or, if it they only watch Faux News, never got to hear about it).
Now if you consider a declaration akin to outlawry and accusation of self-serving interpretation of the religion by the most respected scholar of the most conservative branch of Islam to not be enough, then I'd take that as a sign you're just trying to come up with impossible standards for Muslims to meet in order for your views to never be really challenged and exposed for what they are.
The day what someone *else* is wearing infringes on *your* rights is the day reality has taken a vacation and gone somewhere it might find rationality.
Ackwern:
---
Sometimes we have to sacrifice our personal beliefs in public situations
---
That would be why the UK is a totalitarian democracy - Lots of little "sacrifices" for the "common good" that mounted up and ended up benefiting only a very small elite group.
Let us know how that works out for you (assuming you dare post it anywhere from the UK without it being intercepted, cataloged, then used as "soft intelligence" to deny you a street cleaner's job in the future)
Complain about this comment
Summer Seale, No. 112:
I agree with you that there is a sexual fetish component to the burqa, and the veil -- just as there was to the ancient Chinese practice of binding feet, and just as there is to FGM.
Look, people, it is just plain weird. It is extremely provocative to have, in the middle of a Western city, women walking around looking like black ghosts, or time travelers from the Middle Ages.
There are countries that embrace that image of women. There are countries comfortable with the Taliban, with stoning adulterers, with murdering homosexuals for consensual acts between adults.
There are countries that tolerate sex slavery, the rape of children, human trafficking -- even vivisection of humans by traffickers in organs.
But we also have the right to say, "We are a community that wants no part of barbarism & the Dark Ages."
Eventually, all these practices will have to be outgrown. You know that. We all do. Like cannibalism. Like the scarification of children in initiation "rites." Like whipping children with belts for "talking back." Like beating your wife, come Saturday "just in case she harboured evil thoughts" (still advocated by some traditionalist "Christian" communities in Russia).
Nations that attain maturity at a faster rate earn the benefits more quickly. Thank you, France. Thank you, everyone else fighting to end abuses of human freedoms, and indignities imposed by force by self-righteous old men, and by the terrified submissive women who hang upon their every word.
Complain about this comment
Modern day expressions 31: To have a bee in one's burqa.
Complain about this comment
No. 160, Moonwolf: You are saying silly things, because you know you haven't got a leg to stand on.
If a group of Scots blew the feet off French metro riders for a couple of summers, I would not blame the French for banning kilts or even Scotch whisky.
However, it so happens that no Scots ever banded together to blow the feet off Parisians. Algerians, however, did. They claimed that was a natural reaction to the history of French actions in Algeria.
They did not, at the same time, explain why it was Algerian mobs were going around slaughtering fellow Algerians at night, year after year after year.
Face it: in the 21st century, Islam is the religion with the greatest number of violent members who think nothing of attacking perfect strangers. No one else is doing that.
Don't be surprised that we notice these things, that we remember them for centuries, and that we say we demand that your co-religionists back down and start acting civilised. Really civilised. Down to what they wear in public and how they allow their young people to date.
Complain about this comment
Moonwolf, No. 187: At this writing, actually, Russia is extremely multi-cultural. You would love it there.
Do more research.
Complain about this comment
Maria Ashot:
"[The burqa] still hate speech, even when a woman is making the statement, or defending it. And it directly infringes on my own personal rights, as well as my daughter's."
I am almost sorry to have to point this out, but I think you have dug yourself a very deep hole by repeatedly trying to insist what is indefensible. The burqa is not a form of speech, let alone a form of hate speech. Furthermore, you have repeated attempts to try to justify these things in terms of rights, pouring out constant moral outrage by assuming that people who choose to wear the burqa are captive (without substantive proof of this for a majority of them, let alone all) and asserting their rights have been violated, as well as ridiculously asserting yours have been too by 'hate speech' that is not hate speech.
No amount of your rhetoric and prose will disguise a logical problem: your very use of 'rights' deprives certain Muslims of their rights to dress freely, and the use of 'rights' is undoubtedly correct in the context of choosing what to wear. The only logical way you can now defend this is to assert that they do not choose what to wear, but are forced, which you repeatedly do as exactly that, an ASSERTION. You do this in the face of many Muslim women right here saying that they choose to. You do this in the face of statistics showing a large number of burqa wearers are unmarried, weakening the already presumptuous theory that all Muslim women are forced to wear the burqa.
Let me say: even if hypothetically some Muslim women were pressured to wear it, your elevating of 'rights' to the highest level means that depriving even a minority of Muslim women genuinely choosing the burqa should be a heinous crime. And yet it is not. Because you have one agenda on your mind and you are not willing to concede points of logic.
It simply does not do to repeat to us that white is black and white is black and white is black and white is black... and expect us to believe it. I would say it is disrespectful, although I will not say my 'rights' have been violated!
My problem is not even with your motivation; it's how you choose to pretend you have a justification.
Earlier I suggested that democracy supersedes rights and if a problem becomes too unreasonable and impracticable - such as hypothetically burqas regularly being used to carry out terrorism - society could ban it. Not on some idealistic grounds of 'rights', but simply because they deem it a danger and nothing more. But on an everyday level, burqas are not that kind of problem.
Merely trying to write another English essay to articulate your great feeling about this will not help. You have to address a deep disconnect in your argument; it's not a trivial one. You describe your Christianity. I am a Christian too, and on a personal level if I were asked if Jesus would seek control over other religions, I would say he would stand well clear. If you read your book you can see such evidence all over the New Testament.
Complain about this comment
pollyanna74, No. 213: The argument that Muslim women will be "forced to stay at home" if the burqa is banned is a fallacy at best.
Trust me, as soon as there was a ban on the burqa, Muslim men would quietly adapt. They would send their wives out, uncovered, but modestly attired, on the many household errands that still are relegated to the women.
As for the ones who rely on household help, and keep their women sequestered in harems or modern variations thereof: even they would gradually grudgingly come around.
There is no actual need for these ridiculous get-ups. It is just custom, and customs change. Muslim men in Western countries wear suits and ties in public, don't they?
Complain about this comment
To those women who choose the niqab because you feel as if men are looking at you like pieces of meat without it:
We 'normal' women know that if you want attention, you can dress to get it. If we want to remain low key, we can dress to that effect too. If you don't wear make-up and choose a long sleeve shirt, baggy pants and sensible shoes, with your hair in a ponytail, I can assure you that no one is going to look twice at you, even if you are that devastatingly beautiful.
It could be you are so self-concious about yourself in the first place because you've been conditioned to think that all men have evil thoughts of women all the time. That might be true in some Middle-eastern cultures (the only place I ever felt 'raped' with eyes is Dubai) but in most civilised places on earth, it's not true.
Some people have the feeling that everyone is looking at them all the time. The Niqab is not the solution. However counselling could be.
Complain about this comment
Hello! Salam! Hallo! Bonjour! Shalom!
I am a Muslim woman (with a laptop and a functional knowledge of IT - clearly we're moving up on the Social Degenerates' Ladder: D). I'd like to begin by sending my heartfelt thanks to everyone (especially MARIA ASHOT) who has kindly spoken on my behalf - obviously, i'm too brainwashed, subdued and dim-witted to speak for myself. In fact, I obtained my Law degree (with Honours) from a Top 5 UK university by not leaving the house AT ALL. It was quite a remarkable achievement! One that I must document in a book sometime (which will never get published due to the risk of attracting the opposite sex, of course...)
Anyway, sarcasm and light humour aside! Let’s get down to the nitty-gritty shall we...
(1) I do not wear the Burkha or the Niqab but I know numerous women who do. Out of these women, i'd say less than 1% have been forced to wear it - the overwhelming majority have chosen to wear it out of their own free-thinking, non-vegetative minds. I have never in my entire life come across a single Muslim lady who covers her face and is extreme/ criminal/ a-man-in-a-woman's-disguise/ a threat to National Security/ or obeying her husband’s orders (in fact, a Muslim man is just like all other men in society – he listens whilst the wife gives the orders!). All of my friends who cover their faces have respectable professions - they are doctors, teachers, computer engineers, entrepreneurs, wedding planners (don't knock it till you've used one!). There is no issue of ‘liberating’ these women. Maybe in the East they’re forced to wear it, but are you really trying to tell me that women whose families are not even that practising, who have been raised in a secular society, and who have absolutely no societal obligation to wear the Niqab, would still be ‘forced’ to wear it outside and fighting against family pressures to take it off? Purrr-lease! Pull the other one!
(2) MARIA ASHOT: Whilst you humour me immensely, your baseless views constitute a collective contradiction on so many levels that I do not know where to begin when planning my obliteration of your entire argument.
To quote from you directly:
"Women are not chattel, they are not property, they are not anything less than you"
THEN WHY IN GOD'S GLORIOUS NAME ARE YOU SPEAKING ON MY BEHALF LADY? How can you declare that women have their own lives and personalities, yet generalise about billions of Muslim women in such an inaccurate (and Revolutionary-esque) manner?
"...A woman has.. the.. right to pursue her own happiness, interests and self-determination... She has the same right to an education, to work, to employment, to income and to control over her earnings or finances or property."
Thank you for highlighting that, however, I'd just like to point out that ISLAM GRANTED ALL OF THESE RIGHTS TO WOMEN OVER 1400 YEARS AGO!! Muslim women have the right to be educated, to own their own property, the right to keep their money (not that I planned to share my salary with anyone in the first place!), the right to be fed and clothed by her husband regardless of whether they are earning or not, etc. Did women in any other religions have these rights 1400 years ago? No. I think not. Moving on...
"Any religion that claims anything else is not in fact a religion. It is a cult, and its explicit purpose as a cult is to keep the majority of the human population that is female in a condition of slavery and servitude"
This brings me nicely to the following: Islam is the only Religion that gives women the rights you've mentioned above. Therefore, by your own admission and reasoning, Islam is in fact the world's only Religion (in the accurate sense of the word), and all other major faiths - by your conclusion - are merely cults that want to enslave women. Well, the Pope will not be too happy to hear that now will he, Maria :(
(3) Finally, to all other posters like Maria Ashot: Please please please allow me the liberty of enjoying *some* personal autonomy by acknowledging that I am a human being just like yourselves who can think and make decisions for herself. You say that Muslim women who wear the Niqab have been 'brainwashed' from a young age. If that’s the case then, in the same vein, we can declare that Monsieur Nicolas Sarkozy -- *cue deep voice* Liberator of the People, Superhero of the Decade, Philanderer of the West -- *back to normal voice* has also been brainwashed from a young age to think it's perfectly OK and respectable to have relations with a married woman whose wedding one officiates at (Case in point: Sarkozy's Lust Interest No. 2: Cécilia Ciganer-Albéniz).
It is true that we are all brainwashed to a certain extent when we are children by various forces in our life. Except the reality of Islam is different. Islam does not brainwash you when you are a child, but rather it frees you from this brainwashed state and brings you instead into a state of enlightenment. It gives you answers, for the first time, to questions that you never had the courage to face.
Why is Islam currently the fastest growing religion in the West with hundreds of people accepting it every day? Is it because our lovely European sisters can't wait to get their hands on a Niqab? No! It's because Islam is like a mirror for them – a mirror that shows them every single dark crevice of their character, but also gives them an everlasting hope, a refreshed new life, and a pure contentment of the heart.
The only sad part is that this glorious way of life, that has grown at a rate faster than any other religion in the history of civilisation, has continually been stripped down to the SAME insignificant and subsidiary issues - women, women, WOMEN!! Get over it already! Look beyond this one topic and study the religion as a whole (without any pre-judgemental baggage) - only then will everything fall into place for you, and you’ll see the reality of Islam, not the delusionary tales of Nicolas Sarkozy.
I sincerely ask your forgiveness if i've offended anyone; even you, Maria ;)
"O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness... on the contrary, live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good." (Holy Quran; Surah An-Nisa, Verse: 4:19)
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:
"None but a noble man treats women in an honourable manner. And none but an ignoble treats women disgracefully".
Peace and Love!
Stay Out of Our Closets!
Power to the People!
Free Krispy Kremes!
Complain about this comment
@226 Ahmed
I guess you meant these statistics when talking about rapes :
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
(and plz use per capita,that's more relevant than total "rapes")
Important thing though, "DEFINITION: Total recorded rapes. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence"
... I would expect heavily religious or tribal or developing countries to "report" cases of rape or attempted rape, because of the social stigma.
However, even minor cases of harassment could be counted as rape attempts in more liberalcountries (depending on law interpretation).
But it's certainly disingenuous to assume burkha protect women from rapes.
Domestic violence against women is rape.
In-Laws violence against women is rape.
And yet, they aren't reported as such, when reported at all ...
Best regards,
Complain about this comment
dennisvanovermars, No. 184: You cite a single case and sum it up "clearly, the burqa is not the problem."
One Muslim husband kills his wife but never made her wear a burqa "therefore burqa not the problem"?
Lots of non-Muslim spouses (usually but not always the males) kill their mates all over the world -- with or without enforcing a dress code.
But surely you have also heard of the way young girls and wives are treated in tribal communities where the veiling and oppression of women are believed to the right way to manage women. You have read of the child brides of Yemen. You have heard about abuses of very young brides in non-Muslim communities as well, amongst some fundamentalist Mormon cults, for example, or in some backward parts of India.
The point isn't that "many Muslim men are good to their wives, and some who are bad do not observe shariah." The point is that shariah, specifically, and its key visual emblem for women, the veil (of all different varieities), is rooted in a doctrinal teaching that claims women are intrinsically, ineluctably & immutably Lesser Than Men. And not just by a hair, either: by a full 50%.
That teaching is completely incompatible with the International Declaration on Human Rights, which all UN members have ratified. It is completely incompatible with the Constitutions of the European states (and many others). It is hateful & subversive.
Muslims are struggling to resolve how to view shariah & reconcile it with modern life, or revise it.
But that is their problem, not ours. In societies not traditionally Muslim, we should not be held hostage to their processes, doctrinal confusion, competing priesthoods. We have laws that guarantee the rights and full equality of all females to all males. We need only to enforce those rights.
Enforcing those rights can certainly include forbidding the public promotion, by wearing, of the single most important emblem that stands for the inequality of women according to Islam: the veil, in its various permutations. And we all know, no matter what quirky argument is raised by anyone here, that the Islamic veil we are referring to is not to be confused with a bridal veil, a veil worn in mourning at a funeral, a Spanish mantilla, a scarf worn in the rain, a motorcycle helmet or a surgican mask.
We all know what we are referring to, and why such a ban is not only called for, but long overdue. And even if not in every single EU member state, at least in some: in those that have the courage to stand up to the intimidation of extremists in this extremely simple, yet obviously effective & unambiguous way.
Complain about this comment
Look on the bright side, when Europe becomes the Eurabian Union, we will find out how Sharia law deals with runaway global warming. There must be something in the Koran which mentions how to cope with it.
Complain about this comment
It is odd that people find it offensive that some muslim women decide to cover themselves up from head to toe when in public. Yet in this western society we do not object to women flashing a bit of cleavage or thigh in public. It does seem that people generally prefer the perverse rather than being able to tolerate a very small percentage of women who are not comfortable with exposing there flesh in public. When you start to victimize one group of people because they are different, then you will soon move onto other ethnic groups, why not pick on Nuns who wear habits, or Orthodox jews who who wear long black coats and black hats, or the Sikhs who wear turbans, or the Catholic priest because he wears a dog collar. But then why stop at what a person wears outside in public, why not ban the practicing of those religions which are not indigenous to Western Europe. It seems odd that as a nation along with those from the Common Wealth countries, we fought such oppressive ideologies such as Nazism and Fascism which attacked these differences yet now we allowing the same voice of nationalism to single out and divide those in our society who live in harmony, it sounds like an Orwellian nightmare, which we need to wake up from!!!
Complain about this comment
While I'm at it, Muslims in Europe should appreciate that they live in historically Christian lands and yet they have the FREEDOM to practice their religion. This is not a privilege afforded people of other religions in the lands of their origination.
Muslims in Western Europe are safe from the conflicts between different Muslim sects and tribes, which often oppress and persecute even each other.
To abide by a simple law in their CHOSEN nation that have welcomed and provided shelter and support for them, given them a place of safety for their families, should not even be an issue.
Complain about this comment
Maria ...
While you're thanking France for taking this stand-up position for the fight for women's equality ...
The French aren't really paragons of virtue when it comes to women - they've not only been (as a nation) part of protecting a confessed child rapist and fugitive from justice for 30 years but idolizing him, were up in arms when he finally got arrested, and one of their ministers (a Mitterand?) quite openly wrote in a book about how he's gone to Asia for child sex tourism.
Go ahead, take your daughter there and embrace their wonderful moral culture.
As for the veil being a sexual fetish - so are shoes. Let's ban those too). Rain gear, fetish item, that's got to go. Severe hairstyles, big fetish, make everyone shave their heads.
Anything and everything can be a sexual fetish, try and pick something that isn't so generic for justification. You're grasping at straws now.
With regards to the Algerians, have you actually seen the before and after of soccer matches in the UK, or how many groups of supporters are totally smothered by police in full riot gear when they play overseas? Riots and murders aren't the sole province of any religion - ask any kid in Manchester.
Come to think of it, what about the Bloods and the Crips? How about the cartels in Mexico, what religion are they? I do believe they murdered more people last year in Mexico alone in the drug wars than any Islamic terrorist groups managed to anywhere else.
Hmmm, wonder if we can export the Zetas to Afganistan - That'd deal with the extremists pretty fast.
Face it, it's the 21st century, the information age on steroids, and I get the distinct impression a ton of people are still stuck in the dark ages of the intellect.
Complain about this comment
#133 ‘Muslim women dress modestly for the same reasons that Christian nuns dress modestly. It's for their chastity and dignity.’
Indeed.
'Egypt's sexual harassment 'cancer'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7514567.stm
‘One who abused a woman wearing the niqab said she must be beautiful, or hiding something.’
'Egypt voices: Sexual harassment'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7593765.stm
‘I get harassed every day, although I am always carrying my baby. I thought being a mother would make me immune to harassment, but it made it even worse’.
Tell the women who found themselves trapped by marauding crowds of men on the streets of Cairo during Eid 2006. Western tourists captured unbelievable scenes on their camera phones which can still shock. Recommend Egyptian blogger, Rantings of a Sand Monkey, on the subject.
Muslim women who chose to wear scarves are clearly better off on Western streets where they will be, to their delight, largely ignored. But what about those who run rough shod over notions of modesty with garish coloured and sequined scarves and eye-catching glittery jewelled scarf broaches?
Curiously muslim women are NOT allowed to veil whilst on hajj and particularly around the kabah. The tradition is ignored by a handful modern contrarians, upsetting traditionalists (also offended by the wearing of gold and even trainers, ignoring the barefoot rule). Can someone explain the rules suspending ‘modesty’ of the veil during the hajj?
@ all who suggest disingenuously that 'hijab' means or translates as 'modesty'
The ‘Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World suggests the meaning the hijab has evolved over time: The term hijab or veil is not used in the Qur'an to refer to an article of clothing for women or men, rather it refers to a spatial curtain that divides or provides privacy’.
'The Virgins and the Grapes: the Christian Origins of the Koran'
An interview with "Christoph Luxenberg" by Alfred Hackensberger
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/7025?eng=y
Q. By the way, what do you think about the Islamic veil?
A. - "There is a passage in Sura 24, verse 31, which in Arabic reads, ´That they should beat their khumurs against their bags.´ It is an incomprehensible phrase, for which the following interpretation has been sought: ´That they should extend their kerchiefs from their heads to their breasts.´ But if this passage is read in the light of Syro-Aramaic, it simply means: ´They should fasten their belts around their waists.´"
Q. - Does this mean the veil is really a chastity belt?
A. - "Not exactly. It is true that, in the Christian tradition, the belt is associated with chastity: Mary is depicted with a belt fastened around her waist. But in the gospel account of the Last Supper, Christ also ties an apron around his waist before washing the Apostles´ feet. There are clearly many parallels with the Christian faith."
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The burqua should be banned on security grounds. A 7/7 bomber escaped from the UK wearing one. I was brought up with the old adage, that when in Rome do as the Romans do. Or go home!!!!!
Complain about this comment
#243, Sarah_2010, I am so glad the cavalry has finally arrived to sweep the ignorance off the battlefield. Just when the handwringing patronizers - who advocate, ironically, their alternative control over women - think they were beginning to be heard, the very poor fragile creatures they are trying to 'protect' - the Muslim woman - replies with the earth-shattering surprise that she knows herself better than any crusading buffoon.
Now will someone please clear away the tiresome preachers who claim to speak for Muslim women, and let those very Muslim women be heard? Thank you. Please don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I have a long held view is that the rule of law applies to everyone equally. I don’t believe there should be one rule for one person and one for another. I have found it annoying that a specific group of people are allowed to have their face covered in public areas such as banks, airports and shopping centres while the remaining population are not allowed to wear balaclavas, motorcycle and hoodies in the same areas. Surely we all have the same right? If we don’t then none of us have it!
We are living in security conscious times due to the direct actions of Islamic extremist. As a result we have the rather paradoxical situations that for the sake of modesty (not religious reasons) Muslim women wear burkas while at airports there will be an introduction of full body scans which allows the whole body to be viewed no matter what you are wearing. Where is the modesty in that?
It should be noted that the burka is great disguise for men to carry out crime and in the past even escape the country. There have been several burka bank robberies around the world (Google for details).
The final reason I object to the wearing of the burka is that it acts as a barrier for full integration into the adopted country. I live in London and I have never seen a woman wearing a burka/nijab working in a mainstream area. Is that that these women are not permitted to work by their family or is that mainstream business would find it difficult employing someone wearing a burka working with members of the public?
Women should not be held captive at home to only raise families and then only allowed out constrained by the shackles of a medieval dress code. I believe in equality and recommend that Muslim women burn the burka in the same way that woman of the 70’s burnt their bras.
Complain about this comment
I find it incomprehensible that any woman would want to go around on a hot summers day wearing a burqua. With respect it must get a little sticky and smelly under there. And when a lady lawyer says she has never met a man wearing a burqua she is probably right, but how would she know. Remember 7/7 in the UK.
Complain about this comment
I did not manage to read all the comments made by people, but i will read them all once i get a chance. However, regarding this burka, i have a very strong comment about and i wish everyone or anyone does reply to my comment or email me at [Personal details removed by Moderator] I tel you i am a muslim and i respect all the laws of the country as i live in UK, my wife wear the burka from her own well. i gave her a choice also sometimes when i am at the park or somewhere where there is no men i ask her to take it off and she refuses. Well i tel you why is this, this is because our relgion asks as to do so, eventhough not many muslim womens wear it, u cannot say its not part of islam. Please try to understand our feelings, this is our relgion and it has no effect on anyone, we do not go out making people wear it by force. u have no ever seen a women in burka making trouble. u only see womens who are wearing half naked making these sorts of problems as men trying to fight over them.and calling them sexy and all that. Also u seek the seiks they have daggers under there arm bit, no one has ever asked them to not take daggers, and they can kill anyone ant anytime. I am not going to go over and over to find a reason on how good is burka, i leave this for you to research.However, i want to inform u that its part of our relgion 100% if anyone wants proof i am more than happy to do so. So, as i said i respect the law of the cuntry i am in and the people i am with and around. and i respect those who say this is UK or France or any euro country, this is their law and their country, Ok lets agree with that. So would u leave us alone if we go to the country we came from and not go all over the media plus following us over their and then asking us to do the same thing here?? Why will u force us to take off important aspects of our relgion weather in UK, Egypt..? U see this is all over the media trying to remove things we are in hold off wheather we are in a muslim or non-muslim country. So this isnt only because of laws in UK or france its something bigger. Also at this sitation government are making people divided, we should learn how to leave with each other have respect for anyone no-mater what their belive or disablity. trust me i see this will make big problems god knows what it will be, but i think there is no need for all this. We as british are already facing Global crisis, Illnesses, and we need to live side by side to build our future and aim higher than having to look back to burka and this things. Because these will be worn no matter what happens. until the end of mankind. This is relgion and no one leaves their relgion becauseof a ban.
Complain about this comment
Julian:
Erm, you have exactly the same right to wear a veil as any muslimah does.
Complain about this comment
As an Australian Turkish born muslim and raised proud to be muslim I would ban the burka along with all other fanatical outdated in australia burqa is not in the quran its just coming from arabiq culture
Complain about this comment
Cheer up everyone. Russia has figured out a solution long time ago.
Just a little bit more of Russian snow to be re-directed to Europe; I'll write it down not to forget :o))))
Another wave of global warming and clothes' issue will be sorted marvellously well.
Complain about this comment
minus 20 cures of burka in 20 minutes.
Complain about this comment
Maria ashot you said at 238 Face it: in the 21st century, Islam is the religion with the greatest number of violent members who think nothing of attacking perfect strangers. No one else is doing that.
More people died in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of Christian beliefs, than violent acts committed by Islam in the 21 Century, If you going to rant facts then you should get your facts straight, and from what I have read in your postings you know very little about Islam and the rights of women, your just posting your bigoted views and the only people you will convince are those with a narrow mind like you.
At the end of the day if a women wants to wear a Burka it doesn't hurt anyone, can you really say that you suffer a pain or get offended because a women decides that she will cover herself from head to foot when she goes out, I think not, I personally suffer no ill effect when I see a women in a Burka just like a I suffer no ill effect when walking through Hyde Park in my lunch hour on a summers day and I see a women exposing herself to the world so she can get a better sun tan. People should be allowed to express themselves however they wish without fear or coercion from any member of society and that is a point that has been lost by some in this forum.
Complain about this comment
To: 209. At 00:14am on 22 Jan 2010, MarcusAureliusII
Could you not hide a suicide bomb under a coat or a maternity address?
Your statement is rather confusing.
Complain about this comment
a compilation of assorted shots from the old film "White Sun of the Desert", as an illustration to the discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3nitV6SpOY
Maria-Ashot, people simply hasn't watched the film, that's the problem.
A pity, really, it's been translated into many languages, though can be that translations exist strictly in the Baikonur space launch centre.
It is a tradition, space crews of all world watch this film before going into the rocket, twice a month, for 50 years already. As a good omen for the road. No one who watched it stayed up over there :o)))) all made it back. So, I suppose, the awareness will eventually spread :o))) round the globe, together with burka attitudes :o)))))
Complain about this comment
Indeed, this is a quite complicated issue that cannot be made clear by debates, statements or laws in a short period and all those following posts have shown its complexity.
First of all, as a person believing in religious freedom, I have respects for diffirent religions and various cultures and customs all over the world. So honestly, I dislike the idea of French government banning Muslim females to wear Burka, because such ban embodies the typical superiority of western cultures over other cultures. Most westerners consciously or unconsciously tend to think that their cultures are opener, more modern, demoractic and civilized. And the French ban on burka displays such cultural and religious superiority.
But equally honestly, I support the efforts to free females out of the burka. I read Khaled Hosseini's One Thousand Splendid Suns, and some other materials about the Muslim world and learnt that many females were unwilling to wear burka from the bottom of their heart but wore it because of the pressure from their religion and custom and society and families. I remember the first time when I saw a picture of women in burka, it impressed me as a life being imprisoned in her clothes. I admit it is rather horror to see a person covering all her body except for her eyes.
Someone may rebut that I contradict myself with words above, but I am not. Like many other debators, I agree that the core of those disscussions is not burka itself but the ideas behind it. I surely respect the Muslim traditional dressing custom but I dislike the prejudice embodied by such dressing custom. As we all know in Muslim world, females are required to cover themselves in burka from the top down while males need not though they still have some dressing requirements. The forbiddance on females to show their heads, faces, arms, hands and legs in public has been practised for so long time because from the distant past the Muslim lawmakers believed that those female body parts can easily stur males' sexual intrest and lead them into crimes and fall. The same logic as in the belife that Eve is to blame for Adam's fall. What a huge hypocrisy in a male chauvinism culture.
And I firmly disagree with such claim that it is not about freedom, or human rights or equality, but just a personal choice for Muslim females, that is, if they think it's a virture or it's safe to wear burka, then they can wear it as they like. We should notice how the notion of wearing burka being a virture or a safety measure takes its root in Muslim female brains. In the past and modern society, the female Muslims were and are propagandized by fanatic religious preachers and conservative rulers and patriarch to believe that wearing burka and covering their faces is a kind of female virture. Just as in the ancient China, foot-binding was regarded as a female virture and beauty. Do you know how such weird idea came? Because women with the so called three-inch "golden lotuses" walk unsteadily out of pains from foot-binding but men thought such women were beautiful for their staggering walking resembled the elegant willow. What abominable aesthetics! So, don't say if women think it's a virture then they can wear as they like. Such female virtures show male likes and dislikes.
Complain about this comment
Shah #262
Question. The suicide bombers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. etc. were they not Muslims? Question. Who mostly gets killed by these bombers? Wait, wait, I know the answer to that one. Muslims.
I don't have a dog in the hunt when it comes to whether the French allow wearing a veil or not. I would note that the French have always expected their folks to act French (now who decides what that is I have no idea).
Cristian beliefs have nothing to do with what's going on in Iraq or Afghanistan. Politics? Maybe. Ideas of national security (right or wrong)? Maybe. Cristian beliefs? Absolutely not.
Complain about this comment
Chenjing: You're omitting one rather large (and growing larger) section of Muslimah society - female reverts, or converts to Islam.
They were not raised with any cultural or religious pre-programming with regards to veiling, hijab or more.
They aren't necessarily "propagandized", in fact if they've been subject to any propaganda it's usually from *Christian* fundamentalists, whose distortions akin to those of the muslim extremists led them to abandon Christianity to begin with.
Your logic falls apart at that point, just as Maria's does, with regards to being brought up to accept the veil as being mandatory.
People seem incapable of understanding or believing that a convert, or anyone for that matter, might choose to wear the veil of their own volition, after careful debate.
The whole debate being centered around modesty is really another red herring because it ignores the most obvious answer as to why such women wish to veil - it is because it is a voluntary show of their faith, and it isn't made to show the world they're Muslims, it isn't made to hide themselves from the view of others, they do it as an act of faith, in most cases because the Prophet's wives dressed the same way.
So whilst a Christian might go to church more often, or say a few more Hail Mary's than is absolutely required of them, to show their faith, why is it so hard for people to wrap their heads around the idea a muslimah, especially a convert, might choose to wear the veil not because of the world's influence, but to follow their heart in using it as a way to show deeper faith?
My guess is Maria will come up with some rationalization to brush off and totally disregard the choice of converts even more than she's totally demeaned every other muslimah with a casual "oh, they're brainwashed" - but who can come up with an alternative reason that makes sense as to why converts *choose* to veil?
Especially given the levels of hostility they will face from everyone else if they do.
Complain about this comment
MaudDib, riverdance wow.
Complain about this comment
If we can get global warming to the point where it's say 45-50 degrees C in the summer in Paris Frankistan, those burkhas will do every last one of them in with heat stroke. And ooooh la la, les French girls will be walking the streets in their bikinis. Just like the Carribean, it will be Hot! Hot! Hot! Hey Europe, wake up! Global warming is your friend. Support it.
Complain about this comment
I'm for freedom of religion in the USA, hmmm....such a difficult problem to sort out though for Europeans...but,
I'm for freedom of religion in Europe, too,
so, that there will hopefully be Integration of Muslims into European society
and religious rights for Muslims would mean NOT banning the burka.
Complain about this comment
Women dressed in those Burkas look kind of like Daleks to me. Drones. Hey that photo of the guy at Abu Gharib in the mock electrocution made me think of something. The interrogators shouldn't have humiliated those captured insurgents by forcing them to wear women's underwear, they should have forced them to wear burkas instead. I'll bet that would have gotten them to talk...especially in that heat in Baghdad in teh summer.
Complain about this comment
Can you have a white burka or does it have to be black?
Complain about this comment
BUT,
I did think Chenjing very much tried to show both sides of this debate, leaving this issue unanswered with neither a yes nor a no....IMO,
and his ideas were dismissed as illogical.
EEEK, I like that author Khaled Hosseini, as well. I liked his book, "The Kite Runner" very much.
Complain about this comment
Marcus,
You are a funny guy, a comedian.
I guess I'll leave this discusion, while my dignity is still intact,
oh well,...too late.
Complain about this comment
MaudDib I think any colour.
Complain about this comment
Shame on you, democracythreat, and you were telling Gavin is a bad journalist. See what a squall. :o)))) Even, difficult to tell who says what. Looks like muslim bloggers long wanted to say a thing or two :o) to the different rest, and muslim bloggers have different opinions here as well, and the other way around, there is a lot all want to tell to all.
Why don't we vote in simple numbers representative of a blog.
I can write 10 things for burka out of hand (type saves money on clothing, brings equality like school uniforms, flirting :o) ways are up-graded to another level :o) - imagine showing 2 eyes instead of 1 ! a very daring advance :o)))) . Plus as I understand simply as cosy and comfortable as home pajamas and easy to hop on to get dressed. Etc.
And 10 against.
Still who is interested ? all got own opinions far better than mine.
Still, if I were to chose type "one thing you will take to the un-inhabited island" :o))) or - "simply - is it Yes or No?" it boils down to No with me. Yes or no, country whre you happen to be, muslim or anyone else.
Thus:
No - Russia - not muslim
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
:o)
"Mavrelius - the USA - Yes! Yes! Yes!"
:o))))))
Complain about this comment
MA
Well then I'd be doing black in the winter and white in the summer. It is true that loose clothing, if you wear any, is cooler, than tight. I wonder what you would do if your wore glasses. I know when I wear my glasses with a face mask they fog up.
Complain about this comment
I'd be relatively happy to see veilling banned in public places though I'd prefer it simply became socially unacceptable.
Outfits have been banned in Britain in the past.
After the 1745 rebellion Highland national dress and bagpipes were banned.
The Public Orders Act of 1936 banned political uniforms being worn during demonstrations.
Try wearing a sgian dubh along with your kilt to a football match and see if you get to keep it!
So that takes care of British tradition.
In my view, the covering of women is a political statement by at least some women, and often an act of repression by the family on women. I see it as a refusal to settle and integrate in the adopted country by strict muslim families. It's all very bizarre! If strict muslim customs are so important to a person, then why they actually live in a mostly secular Europe is just bizarre to me - surely integration would be easier and more comfortable?
Complain about this comment
The moderators must be in a shift change.
Complain about this comment
Great link, WA (youtube link)
Good times!
Complain about this comment
Ban one clothing item then lets ban lots of clothing like 'french fashion' or cheap green plastic garb on St Paddy's day or what ever the English football fans wear when they go abroad. Hey lets go nude. I mean come on!
Complain about this comment
David:
I just simply pointed out that he made a blanket assumption that "We should notice how the notion of wearing burka being a virture or a safety measure takes its root in Muslim female brains. In the past and modern society, the female Muslims were and are propagandized by fanatic religious preachers and conservative rulers and patriarch to believe that wearing burka and covering their faces is a kind of female virture."
Apart from "Muslim female brains", which sounded downright odd, the premise of his theory completely omits the situation with converts, as does Maria's.
There are no conservative rulers and patriarch in the US (unless you count Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Rush Limburger).
So these finely crafted arguments how muslimahs are really the products of childhood desensitization and propaganda fall flat on their faces - the premises are logically flawed by not covering that group.
copperDolomite: A secular country doesn't mean "No religion is practiced there", it simply means the government is organized along secular, not religious lines. By your implied definition of a secular country, the Church of England should be outlawed.
Can we at least get the meanings of words properly understood?
Complain about this comment
As I see it, such a law would produce needless suffering and would reveal a rather unenlightened attitude regarding respect for the cultural sensitivities of others. Furthermore, it would play right into the irrational thinking of religious extremists. World governments should perhaps be more focused on diffusing sources of extremism through wise policy making and diplomacy, not provoking extremism with such silliness.
Complain about this comment
Look i'm going to be honest, I don't like the look of the Burka, I don't like seeing it worn on the streets, the same as I wouldn't like someone to wear a balaclava on the High st. I'm not alone in thinking this.
The burkha has no place in Western society. We should be serious about integrating Muslim communities into our society but there are some habits and customs that will have to be shelved in order to acheive this. The burka is for me, the main one.
Now I travel alot, I have lived in Islamic countries, where the Burka is more commonly worn, but Britain/France are not Islamic countries. Many Muslims in the UK and abroad have a dislike of the Burka, it is not seen as an Islamic requirement for women to wear.
Some people will talk about rights, but there's a much bigger issue at stake here, that is the large muslim community living harminously within British society OR living as a parallel and alienated community.
Banning the Burka would help muslim communities integrate better within British society, and reduce the perception within Britain that Islamic culture is incompatible; i'm sure of it
Complain about this comment
Isaac (240): democracy cannot trump human rights. Democracy only allows us to choose between two courses of morally acceptable action; to favour the one that will result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But it can't make something wrong right. Forcing gladiators to kill one another in the Colliseum was wrong, irrespective of the majority in the crowd raising or lowering their thumbs. (The 'when in Rome' argument also fails to make that morally acceptable). There might be a majority in the world who would like to string George W. Bush up from a lamppost like Mussolini but that would not make it right either. Liberal democracy, where there are constituiomal limits (e.g. Bill of Rights, etc) to protect individuals or minorities from what the majority may impose on them is therefore superiror to 'true' or pure democracy.
Now the majority in france forcing 1900 Muslim women not to wear the burqa is not as bad as depriving someone of life, but how we dress in public is not the concern of the state so long as we respect public limits of decency. When the law singles out the clothing of one particular minority who happen to be unpopular post 9/11 it is thinly disguised discrimination which remains wrong even if it has majority support.
Complain about this comment
At 01:08am on 22 Jan 2010, matt wrote:
Hey check post 217
I was brought up for a while in Pakistan, and my wife is a Pakistani.
I keep wondering why it is that I am seeing more women wearing the burka in north London than I did in Rawalpindi?
- And, neither my wife nor I can ever remember seeing a teacher in Pakistan wearing a Burka.
It is almost as out of place there as the uncomprehending western girl I saw wearing a mini skirt at Islamabad airport.
When in Rome do as ......
AGREE !
Matt:
I'm afraid that the West is being 'taken for a ride', and a pretty nasty one at times too.
People who wouldn't , in their own country, put up for one minute with foreigners flouting their cultural norms, come to the West and expect to do just that here.
In many Muslim countries ( that we have good relations with !) Christians are routinely abused, marginalised, banned and persecuted, yet Muslims from the same countries are brazen enough to come to the west and demand all sorts of protection and special treatment , using our own 'human rights' laws to tie us up in knots.
For some reason, we are governed by a bunch lawyers, who are intellectual idiots with little understanding of real life, and almost no commonsense, and who think that 'making a law' and being politically correct is the way to fix everything (!).
Some hypocrites from Muslim countries have been quick to spot this open goal and drive a coach and horses through it..... to our cost.
Unfortunately for us, in the end, to paraphrase a famous saying: 'those that live by the law, die by the law'....
Time to wake up !
Complain about this comment
Freeborn John: "democracy cannot trump human rights... There might be a majority in the world who would like to string George W. Bush up from a lamppost like Mussolini but that would not make it right either. Liberal democracy, where there are constituiomal limits (e.g. Bill of Rights, etc) to protect individuals or minorities from what the majority may impose on them is therefore superiror to 'true' or pure democracy."
Look, I know where you're coming from and I know your intentions are decent, that there must be some universal measure of decency that can never be violated. But my argument about democracy superseding human rights was specifically written to rebutt precisely the idea you assert: that laws granting human rights are inherently 'right'. It is an unsustainable position because, when all is said and done, it draws a line in the sand and asserts that a specific time's formulation of human rights is forever perfect and inherently correct.
If we can take as a postulate that democracy is the model form of government, which is not too unreasonable given what is said by the very people who believe in human rights: These matters still, in the end, must be subservient ultimately to the will of the people: democracy. Anything else is your own form of dictating terms to the populace.
I am not saying that rights cannot be used as a legal framework, in the situation which you describe, liberal democracy. I am merely saying that they do not occupy a special place of "right" beyond regulation by the people. They have their place and liberal democracy is very successful. But in the end they are a method of functioning, not a divine absolute. I would agree with you that liberal democracies are better, and ultimately because they are BOTH "liberal" and "democracies".
Complain about this comment
Just to add: I know not viewing human rights as an entirely untouchable paragon may not sit comfortably with you. But liberal democracies really have operated that way, still operate that way and will continue to operate that way. In the United States, rights are 'enshrined' in the Constitution but even there, this entire consitution is open to amendment by Congress if there are enough votes, giving the ultimate democratic choice. In UK, we don't even have a defined consitution, so we try to muddle along on a mix of legislation and common law, as well as signing up to certain treaties on the subject of rights. But the point is that while this is all functiona, not inherently correct. We could pull out of a treaty if we liked to, and forge our own path. And I think the ability to do this is the only way to be consistent with democracy.
I guess my take-home message is that "rights are defined to fit around life, but life is not defined to fit around rights".
Complain about this comment
To be honest, whether Britain goes ahead and bans the niqaab or doesn't shouldn't be a problem - those Muslim women who are wearing the niqaab for purely cultural reasons will ditch it; those who are being forced to wear it will have a good excuse not to and any subsequent domestic injustice can be dealt with separately; as for those who choose to wear it and will not be forced not to (such as myself), we'll just leave. Actually, I think it will be a good thing, it'll force many Muslims to wake up and smell some reality coffee. This so called multiculturalism thing can only go so far if people want to maintain some sense of 'right' and 'wrong', and that is true for both Muslims who believe it's right to be allowed to wear it if they so choose, and non-Muslims who believe it's right to expose the face in public. Go ahead Britain and stick to ur beliefs, as I will do with mine.
Complain about this comment
"..//..should dress in a manner that doesn’t frighten the children."
Oh no, not that old chestnut, when all other rational arguments fail 'we must not frighten the children' - has it never occurred to the pedallers of this myth that kids are all accepting until they learn otherwise from their elders, kids are as accepting of the burka as they are of total nudity (and everything between).
The problem with people hiding their faces, apart from the security issues, and here I'm talking about the likes of walking into a bank, not someone using a disguise as was the case with one the the London bomb plotters, is that in the west we communicate both orally and visually, our body language is as important as the sounds that come out of our mouths (it is also why it's ever so easy to misunderstand people in a text only environment like this blog), not being able see facial expressions is a handicap in our societies.
Complain about this comment
re my comment @ #292:
That was, of course, replying to comments made by "Wonthillian" @ #4. Sorry for any confusion.
Complain about this comment
I see 'experts' at Newcastle University are calling for vitaminD supplementation in food as there is a rise of rickets in Newcastle (if in Newcastle, possibly elsewhere). One of the main factors in low vitaminD levels in people, including pregnant women, is lack of skin exposure to sunlight. I have noticed occasional medic comments in the media about women in burkas living in northern countries being unable to get enough vitaminD.
The practice is unnatural and should be banned in the UK on health grounds alone.
Complain about this comment
Melbournian wrote: "Shame on those who hide behind their own mask of "civlization" to justify their own prejudice and fears."
Wrong! It is rather shameful to hide behind the absurd principal of absolute liberty to tolerate the intolerable. And Melbournian, France has the biggest Jewish, Muslim, African and probably even Asian communities in Europe and has successfully, up until now at list, integrated huge waves of immigrants all along its long history, so to suggest that it is intrinsically intolerant or even racist is a joke, you're quite simply to ignorant or prejudiced against the French, witch considering the fact that you are an Australian wouldn't surprise me one bit (Chirac did after all damage our image there with his unnecessary nuclear tests).
Complain about this comment
@262 Shah:
"More people died in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of Christian beliefs, than violent acts committed by Islam in the 21 Century, If you going to rant facts then you should get your facts straight, and from what I have read in your postings you know very little about Islam and the rights of women, your just posting your bigoted views and the only people you will convince are those with a narrow mind like you."
I think you owe Maria an apology Shah. Don't get me wrong, I don't support the invasion of Iraq, but last time I checked the vast majority of Muslim deaths (and I mean vast) were caused by two different sects of Islam kidnapping, torturing and murdering each other with power drills. Was I misinformed?
Complain about this comment
Posted by Ostrich. As regards your final comments about integration. My siblings and I speak English better than our mother tongue, we support England in football and cricket and we have more "white" English friends than friends from our country of origin. And we are typical in our strata of Muslim society in England. Is this not integrated enough for you? Or are we still "other" because we wear different clothes? Is your definition of "integration" basically that we should be browner versions of white people?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lets reverse the argument and see how hollow it is. A British women emigrates to a Islamic republic and states "I speak Arabic fluently, support the national football and cricket team, have freinds from the local community, but my only hang up from the UK is I insist on wearing my Laura Ashley summer dresses, and if the locals are offended at seeing my hair, arms, and tanned legs well tough luck".
Has she integrated, or is she being confrontational?
The shame is that this debate is taking place and politicians are having to think about laws to ban the burka. In reality it should'nt happen as Muslims should be sensitive to the wider society they have chosen to live in and not wear the burka as they know that many find it offensive. Why is it that Muslims so easily take offence at what they perceive as a slight on their beliefs yet all of a sudden grow a thick skin when they offend us?
BTW, I lived in Pakistan for a year in the early 90s and other than the remote villages in the NWFP never saw women in Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore etc wearing the burka.
Complain about this comment
-
I am a Muslim woman (with a laptop and a functional knowledge of IT - clearly we're moving up on the Social Degenerates' Ladder: D). I'd like to begin by sending my heartfelt thanks to everyone (especially MARIA ASHOT) who has kindly spoken on my behalf - obviously, i'm too brainwashed, subdued and dim-witted to speak for myself. In fact, I obtained my Law degree (with Honours) from a Top 5 UK university by not leaving the house AT ALL.
-
So, you are a muslim woman, and it just might be that your grandmother also was. And that there is a big difference between what education you have received and what your grandma had. So, how did it happen, that the very idea of a law degree for a woman became not only acceptable but a fact of everyday life?
I'll tell you - due to people like Maria Ashot - during times of your grandmother and your mother - who may have looked "too passionate" and "poking their noses into non-their own business", "speaking on behalf of other women who are - thank you very much - very happy at home where they are, and don't need to be represented by some break-necks beyond their circle, who know nil what these happy homely women really want".
All women should remember that the changge from home to profession took place very recently, within the last century, and due to fighting for human rights, not happening "by itself" oh so "naturally".
-
Thank you for highlighting that, however, I'd just like to point out that ISLAM GRANTED ALL OF THESE RIGHTS TO WOMEN OVER 1400 YEARS AGO!! Muslim women have the right to be educated, to own their own property, the right to keep their money (not that I planned to share my salary with anyone in the first place!), the right to be fed and clothed by her husband regardless of whether they are earning or not
-
I believe that "ISLAM GRANTED". Certainly something good and nice is written in some books somewhere. Granted, but forgot to give, LOL! If you were relying on what "Islam granted" to you, as min. in terms of education, you'd still wait for your degree and possibility to practise another 1,400 years.
In Turkey - Ataturk "granted" - not "Islam". Wanting to up-grade his society to the modern standards.
In Central Asia - communism "granted". Turkestan, Azerbajan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kirghizstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, muslim part of Georgia.
Caucasus - Chechnya, Ingushetia, Daghestan.
Lower Volga - Tatarstan.
200 million people of the USSR, which had 350 million, of which 150 million were Russians.
200 million people - that's a big change in the continent.
Women were dragged out to schools - and then to universities - kicking and fighting - against the will of their own, of their family, against awful resistence of the whole society who wanted to live "like the previous 1,400 years". Forcefully modernised, "women ought to attend school because men and women are equal and education is obligatory for all".
I don't know how it happened that women got access to the education and work in Middle East, may be it was Islam-driven own internal initiative.
But for the region in around Russia - I know very well how it happened, and Islam had nothing to thank for in this respect. "Granted". Oh yeah.
Why girls in Christian communities - in the same very region - who were getting their first education for masses, a generation, for the first time as well - were NOT harassed, beaten, prohibited to attend school at home? There was a huge difference in the difficulties a muslim woman experienced in the home society - when having to attend school - compared to her other religion counterpart.
Hundreds were beaten to death at home - girl, not boys - mind it - for the very idea to comply with the law - and go attend school. For the very idea to take off burka and sit study in a class-room where an alien teacher, a man, can see them. This Gargantuan change - done in the lovely communistic style - in several years, without LOL warning - costed very dearly to many. It came rudely and costed expensively, and to throw away the acheievemnts that came so expensive is how to say, not very wise, and likewise it is not very wise to give the credit for it "to Islam".
I think in India the change came due to British invasion and also costed dearly - to be thrown off away and surrendered back.
I think in Pakistan the change came due to Britain.
Where from are you "a muslim woman in the UK" ? What is that country where education for women at your grandmothers' place became possible "because Islam granted it"?
-
I have never in my entire life come across a single Muslim lady who covers her face obeying her husband’s orders (in fact, a Muslim man is just like all other men in society – he listens whilst the wife gives the orders!). All of my friends who cover their faces have respectable professions - they are doctors, teachers, computer engineers, entrepreneurs, wedding planners (don't knock it till you've used one!). There is no issue of ‘liberating’ these women. Maybe in the East they’re forced to wear it, but are you really trying to tell me that women whose families are not even that practising, who have been raised in a secular society, and who have absolutely no societal obligation to wear the Niqab, would still be ‘forced’ to wear it outside and fighting against family pressures to take it off? Purrr-lease! Pull the other one!
-
Aha. "may be in the East" And why is the difference, between "East" and "West" ?
In Russian Chechnya, sliding back to medieval times, and in the Caucases likewise - it is not "may be". LOL!
Just try NOT to wear a head-scarf there, you won't last half an hour.
So what is the difference, "in the East"? What is the difference, between Caucasus and Chechnya and Russia elsewhere? One would think we are one and the same "East" ? Why can't a woman do all a man does in Chechnya and in the Caucasus? Why you can't walk a street un-accompanied there when it gets dark?
"a husband does what his wife tells him to do, like everywhere".
I agree. True. After they've been together for 10 years. If she happens to be the only wife, she will have upper hand eventually, likely. Not open, but quiet influence, ability to get it her way.
But - right after marriage? Three ha ha. Right after marriage she'll be washing his feet in a pan, every evening. Starting from the wedding party - begins right there - to show her obedience.
And - which wife tells, may I ask, out of the four? The luckiest one, let's say.
We just watched in Russia the whole fun, how exactly a muslim man obeys his wife. We had a popular pair divorced, both absolutely "modern" people - a Moscow businessmen, Chechen by parents, and a Lithaunian girl - daughter of Alla Pugachyova/popular old here pop-singer. Both millionnaires, living in Moscow. So they divorced. Happens. He grew up a harem, a whole street built up in cottages, and in every cottage - one of his wives and children. LOL. Convenient to visit, all in one street, compact, and kids get friendly to each other, play together, one big happy family.
So the official wife - because it is not allowed in Moscow to marry 4 times - went on strike. :o)))) She didn't like finding out about the harem grown over "on the side". Cultural and religious differences, if you wish.
They divorced, happens, so far so good. And nothing happened for 2 years until their son became 12 years old. That's when the daddy came, grabatised him and whisked off away to his cottages' street. Because "when a boy turns 12 it's enough with mummies and nannies, he ought to be brought up in muslim traditions, by father, who will show him an example."
He quickly had a court ruling arranged in his favour, that father should keep the child, because the court case was heard in Chechnya. One day he applied, next day hearing and verdict, third day infomed mother by telegram that "the court has taken place" :o)))))
Chechnya is also Russia. What one Russian court has decided - another can't over-rule.
Now whole country watched this breath-taken, because that's Alla Pugachyova's grandson in question. And nobody could do any thing.
The boy is happy. He willingly appears to the TV cameras. He likes it better with daddy. "Daddy doesn't make me study like my previous nannies did. He never scolds me for un-done school-work. He took me from school and hired me private teachers. I am sure I will pass exams later on like all the rest. I am having fun. Ramzan Kadyrov is like uncle to me. He likes me very much. He says I am a good muslim boy. Father bought me several cars. I am learning to drive. I have many friends - other fathers' children. They all love me, we are like one big family. His other wives are kind to me. I don't miss my mother. I want to be like my dad. " etc.
This is "East". fact on the ground. that it is not so for you in the UK - how many wives more do you have around, to be friendly with, may I ask? it is not "thanks to Islam".
Complain about this comment
"Moonwolf" wrote:-
Moonwolf I think you misunderstand. It is not really about imposing but self-denial for the common good. It is preferable that it is voluntary but that isn't likely to happen,is it? You ignore my point about nudity entirely. It is only the other extreme of the same arguement. I guarantee that the first and most vociferous people to object to public nudity would be the "modest" burka wearers. Yet why should public nudity be deemed indecent? Is that not just a another cultural issue albeit one that most people subscribe to? And why should extreme modesty be more a virtue than extreme immodesty? That is also just a cultural issue. Extremes in any facet of life make the majority uncomfortable.
Extreme demonstrations of piety and observance outside of one's religious circle are odd, except in ritualised customs. If one holds a contary faith or diametrically opposed opinion are we saying that they too should be able to demonstrate that? Should we as citizens be wearing our religious beliefs like football favours? To what purpose? Is it a way to promote cohesion or division? Burka wearing and nijab wearing are actually fundamental extremes within Islam and not tenets. They are cultural icons not religious requirements just as female circumcision is. Is that also acceptable if a religious a belief rather than a cultural one?
And do you accept it is my right not to have to deal with people face to face that do not reveal their own face is I so wish?
Complain about this comment
Devon #297
Very good post.
Complain about this comment
A Country thar requires Everyone to carry an Identity Card must ,I think, insist on a face to compare it with !
Complain about this comment
WebAlice
Re #298
Briliant female analysis of the historic changes that the Muslim female could never have had without considerable change and pressure for reform of traditional Islam.
As you write, even now, it is a long way from reality.
Last time I checked Saudi Arabia, the heart of the Muslim world, despite all those things "..granted.." to female Muslims a thousand years ago, still did not let Women drive vehicles!
It just does not get any more easy to point out a backward and medieval outlook than that!
So, there is an incredibly rich, powerful and thoroughly educated Muslim society (Saudi) still acting in such a repressive and prejudicial manner to one half of the Human population - - why should we not then consider using the Law in Europe to bring about change on behalf of Islam - - whether it likes it or not?
Complain about this comment
Comment on No. 79
You probably have not lived or been brought up in Arab / Islamic countries.
Many women do wear the Hijab, Burga, Veil or whatever else you like to call them.
Yet, some of these women do get raped (and often by family members), unfortunately i have no statistics, but i know it happens.
Sadly, many of these ladies end up six feet under, killed by a family member to wipe the shame off their family, and protect their reputation.
Out here we call it honour killing, and the law does provide a lesser penalty to the "brave and courageous" men who kill their female relative to save the family reputation.
I mean, after all what right did the woman have walking the street, or opening the door to a relative without her Husband (or Muharam - males the women is legally allowed to be with, ie father, brother, so)being there.
Incidentally, the outcome for the woman could be the same if the woman was raped by a perfect stranger.
On the same note, Christian women do get raped too, and often the rapist gets leniency due to, according to the judge, the woman wearing provocative clothing!
To be fair, up to the early sixties, Christian men would also wipe the shame off their families by killing the woman.
So the practice in itself is not muslim, but you no longer hear of Christian honour killings, and if it happens it is treated as a pure crime!
Luckily, judges have started taking a stricter view on the matter, and there is a lot of pressure to modify laws so as to remove the article on honour killings, and place it under premeditated murder.
It seems rape is part of any society, especially where men and women co-exist, and it is not a direct result of provocation.
A rapist is just that, a rapist, and should be treated accordingly.
I am sorry to have gone off the subject here, but the issue is really not why people wear the Hijab, it is why people emigrate to countries with liberal norms and expect to modify the ways of the citizens of these countries.
I hate to say this, but I agree that those who want to live the old way of life should really stay in their countries of origins.
With all due respect to all
Complain about this comment
Moonwolf wrote: "The French aren't really paragons of virtue when it comes to women - they've not only been (as a nation) part of protecting a confessed child rapist and fugitive from justice for 30 years but idolizing him, were up in arms when he finally got arrested, and one of their ministers (a Mitterand?) quite openly wrote in a book about how he's gone to Asia for child sex tourism."
Well, i don't know if the French are paragons of virtue, but you my dear, are clearly an adept of easy generalisations, over simplifications, and so dare I say, a true xenophobe in your own right. So who's living in the dark ages now lady?!
Complain about this comment
[54. At 6:10pm on 21 Jan 2010, ArifurRahman wrote:
Suppose two sisters who are twins, and who are equally beautiful, walk down the street. One of them is attired in the Islamic hijab i.e. the whole body is covered, except for the face and the hands up to the wrists. The other sister is wearing western clothes, a skirt or a mini. Just around the corner there is a hooligan or ruffian who is waiting for a catch, to tease a girl. Whom will he tease? The girl wearing the Islamic Hijab or the girl wearing the skirt or the mini? Naturally he will tease the girl wearing the skirt or the mini. Such dresses are an indirect invitation to the opposite sex for teasing and molestation. The Qur’an rightly says that hijab prevents the women from being molested. ]
Rubbish! More and more stories are emerging from countries where women are covered up in this manner, saying that they are still assaulted by men, despite their modest garments.
So perhaps it's the men in these countries who should not be allowed on the streets?
And for your information, many Western women manage to dress modestly without wrapping themselves in a tent.
Complain about this comment
In a Country where Everyone has to carry an Identity Card it would be strange to allow people to be Masked ,would it not ?
Complain about this comment
David wrote: "I'm for freedom of religion in Europe, too,"
Good, good, then you will be pleased to know that la laïcité is precisely that, the right to practice your religion freely, within appropriate places such as your home or your mosque or synagogue, and without trying to impose on other's your backward religious views and practices, and with the satisfaction of knowing that there is a perfect separation of church and state, and therefor no official state religion. And voilà, the french dream in a nut shell, and mostly the reason why WE don't go to war based on the mystic hallucinations of a mad cowboy!
Complain about this comment
Behind all this stuff, there's a lot of weird psychology that I cannot even begin to understand.
I'm male and I like women, but I don't understand women's clothing choices. Someone mentioned stiletto heels. Why do women wear them? Not for men, certainly not for this one. They look ridiculous and are a total nuisance. I can only presume they want, temporarily or permanently, to cripple themselves. Is the burka in the same category? I really don’t know. For that matter, why do men wear ties?
Religion is as difficult for me to understand as clothing. Everyone has a right to their God. But I don’t understand the desire for religious display. I don’t understand the desire to be ruled by a bunch of old hypocrites, who clearly don’t believe what they preach. If there is a God and he gave us free will, we have no right to abandon it. If there is no God, we should not obey religious leaders. Either way, no one should force anyone to be ashamed of their bodies, to cover their faces or to do anything else that serves no use.
Complain about this comment
Why all the Koranic verses? A secular state is not going to care about the ramblings of some egotist warlord or his interpretation of what his magical sky fairy wants.
Complain about this comment
@307 Cracklite
"And voilà, the french dream in a nut shell, and mostly the reason why WE don't go to war based on the mystic hallucinations of a mad cowboy!"
Thank you for explaining French culture to all. Sounds intriguing, however, I hope you don't intend on forcing those cultural beliefs upon us.
That would be very rude, especially so if you had moved to Britain to work and live.
:-)
Complain about this comment
Bobcon wrote: "In a Country where Everyone has to carry an Identity Card it would be strange to allow people to be Masked ,would it not ?"
My god, the thing you read these days...
Listen friend, no, the French do no have to carry their identity card, that is a myth, at best you must have your driving licence if you intent to use your car, the only place where my ID was ever required is when I entered Switzerland or in rare occasions for administrative purposes, but you're ABSOLUTELY not expected to carry your ID on you, the contrary would be nuts and I would be the first to protest!
Complain about this comment
Bobhead "I hope you don't intend on forcing those cultural beliefs upon us.
That would be very rude, especially so if you had moved to Britain to work and live."
I wouldn't force anything in anyone, I don't believe in rape, cultural or otherwise, but since you're mentioning this theme of imposing ideas and ideologies on others, I too find myself intrigued by the lack of understanding and tolerance of the french ways, and I sometimes find it quite...rude.
The UK and the US believe in communitarianism, in absolute freedom, even when it's at the expense of the integrity and values of the country itself, and to that I say to each is own, but the French prefer a certain degree of integration, not to the point of imposing charcuterie, camembert or nudist beaches to everyone (thank god, I loath nudists and french cheeses), but enough to, in theory, create a sense of belonging to the same country and accepting a core of ideas, mainly republican and cartesian ideas in France, that goes without saying. Now it doesn't seem to work all that well with some french Muslims, a small minority actually, but it doesn't mean that we should stop trying.
Complain about this comment
#292 Boilerplated
Maybe my 'frighten the children' comment was a bit flippant, but the point of my post was to say that there are various circumstances where it might be appropriate (either through statutory law or contractual requirements) to request full facial identification, whether in the context of a teacher-pupil relationship or in situations of possible security risk (walking into a bank). However this does not justify an absolute ban. I think the ability to choose how we dress in public is a basic human right (freedom of expression). Obviously, there are limits, but even nudity is OK in the UK provided it is not used to "harass, alarm or distress" others. Of course any discussion about human rights should be (though rarely is) a balanced one, and there are circumstances where it might be necessary to override such rights in the interests of security or the wider public interest. Also, people who dress away from the norm (whether it's Muslim women wearing burkas or hairy men wearing frilly pink dresses) are likely to risk non-acceptance in society. But I think we need to be very careful before passing laws that restrict our ability to dress more or less as we like in the majority of cases where it doesn't really matter.
Complain about this comment
Isaac (289/290): The US Congress can only propose amendments to the US Constitution. If it could ratify them itself, you would find it rapidly usurping the executive power of the presidency and the US system would soon de-generate into the type of parliamentary democracy common in Europe. The much-heralded US democracy actually has greater limits on the power of the short-term majority in Congress than most European countries, including France where the Constitution has become a plaything of the politicians and cannot therefore restrain them in any meaningful way.
In the long run i agree with you that what constitutes a right protected from the short-term majority must ultimately be changeable by the people. But it is more important that it be difficult and time consuming to change. The recent Swiss example of a constitutional amendment to ban minarets shows that when a constitution is too easily changeable by the people, it also cannot protect minorities.
Human rights in the UK without any written constitution is something of a miracle. Our liberties depend more on certain attitudes among the public who are quite distrustful of the politicians we elect to our omnipotent parliament. However that culture is alive and well and i am confident that whatever the French decide, we will not be banning the burqa on this side of the Channel. When woman stop wearing the burqa in the UK, it will be because they decide to do so themselves.
-------------
"The practical principle which guides them (most men) to their opinions on the regulation of human conduct is the feeling in each person's mind that everybody should be required to act as he, and those with whom he sympathizes, would like them to act. No one, indeed, acknowledges to himself that his standard of judgment is his own liking. But an opinion on a point of conduct not supported by reasons can only count as one person's preference; and if the reasons, when given, are a mere appeal to a similar preference felt by other people, it is still only many people's liking instead of one....
In England, from the peculiar circumstances of our political history, though the yoke of opinion is perhaps heavier, that of law is lighter, than in most other countries of Europe; and there is considerable jealousy of direct interference, by the legislative or the executive power with private conduct; not so much from any just regard for the independence of the individual, as from the still subsisting habit of looking on the government as representing an opposite interest to the public. The majority have not yet learnt to feel the power of the government their power, or its opinions their opinions...
There is, in fact, no recognized principle by which the propriety or impropriety of government interference is customarily tested. People decide according to their personal preferences. ... The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him." J.S. Mill (On Liberty, 1861)
Complain about this comment
I believe you can measure the size of someone's mind by the concerns that preoccupy it.
In history, the wearing of veils by a few thousand women in a few countries will go down as a non-event.
It is tragic that many people's ideologies and motivations are so entrenched and evolved out of control, that they can elevate an issue of this tiny size to fill the entire space of the craniums. But I suppose physically this makes perfect sense.
It is one thing to suggest something such as a ban and be honest about the reasons - trying to force integration, explicitly being monocultural. At least you are arguing in good faith. It is quite another to use sophistry to pretend it is about some higher motivation, such as human rights and liberation. Your condescending mindset towards the rest of the world has not gone unnoticed, and as the rest of the world grows, it will not forget.
Complain about this comment
Gavin Hewett's article posted today (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/) features a burqa-wearing woman who converted to Islam 12 years ago.
Sarah_10 in post 243 states:
"Maybe in the East they’re forced to wear it, but are you really trying to tell me that women whose families are not even that practising, who have been raised in a secular society, and who have absolutely no societal obligation to wear the Niqab, would still be ‘forced’ to wear it outside and fighting against family pressures to take it off? Purrr-lease! Pull the other one!"
It is no surprise that the women most likely to wear burqas (or men most likely so sport shaven heads, bushy bears and wear Islam dress) are either converts to Islam or British-born.
It's the same with any culture - those who feel least secure are the most extreme.
Complain about this comment
Isaac posted. It is one thing to suggest something such as a ban and be honest about the reasons - trying to force integration, explicitly being monocultural. At least you are arguing in good faith.
Is that such a bad thing? Besides a monoculture is never going to be reached. French Muslims are not going to throw away their burkas for stripped jumpers and berets, nor is anyone expecting them to. I would like to think that the majority on here have no problem with those from an ethnic background who wish to dress in a traditional way, be that wearing bangles, a turban, a headscarf etc.
That isn't the argument, it is about covering the face and head. Many myself included think that to cover the face is a bit sinister and goes against a cultural norm which has been with us in Europe for centuries. Unspoken communication by reading somebodies face is a natural thing. No doubt somebody can tell me how many muscles there are in a persons face, I know it is a lot as humans have developed to be expressive that way. For someone to cover their face, putting up that barrier which stops communication is seen by many as an affront. All I am asking for is a bit of compromise, I don't mind what anyone wears whether it has any significance religiously or not, but leave the face uncovered.
Then there is the question of fairness. The only people who do cover their faces and get away with it are those wearing burkas. You can google plenty stories on it.
Jedi Knight asked to remove cowl in Tescos.
Hoodies banned from shopping centres.
Headwear asked to be removed so CCTV can be used.
A few off the top of my head. It does seem strange that the wider community is expected to show their face, but some Muslim women do not. Is a level playing field that much to ask for?
Complain about this comment
Devon, 297:
I take it you don't think it's right that non-Muslim women are forced to cover up when they go to Saudi Arabia, for example. I don't think it is, either. The crux of my argument is that people should have the freedom to dress how they like, as long as they don't try and force their dress code on anyone else, whether we're talking about Europe or Saudi Arabia. Why is it a valid argument that "they are forcing our women to wear the hijab, so we will force their women not to"?
I mean, let's take another example. The psycho mullahs in Saudi Arabia ban women from driving. Should we then pass a law that says all women MUST drive?? It's a silly example, but just goes to show how daft it is to justify our throwing away the individual's right to freedom of expression on the grounds that other countries don't grant it. To put it in even simpler terms, what you're saying is: "Saudia Arabia is doing something wrong, so it's OK if we do the same".
Maria - you had something to say to me, but you've posted so many comments, I'm having trouble keeping up with you! (Also, please don't take this the wrong way, but your comments are getting longer and more and more off topic). I do seem to remember (and I apologize if that's not the case) that a big thrust of some of your arguments earlier was that all women who wear a burqa are doing so under compulsion, and then when someone pointed out that that's not the case, you said the ones who THINK they are wearing it of their own free will are ACTUALLY conditioned to think so. Erm ... do you realize how patronizing you are being to those women who choose to wear the hijab by being so dismissive about their choice to wear it? My sister - and one of her friends, a CONVERT who accepted Islam well into her 20's, and also wears the veil - are doctors. They have papers published and one of them's doing a PhD. They do not need you to think for them.
Complain about this comment
Devon, # 317 - i'm going to have a go at you again ;-)
You're saying that putting a barrier in front of the face is a barrier to communication. Again, I agree with you, and it is for this reason that my mother chooses not to veil her face, and why my sister takes off her veil when she's seeing patients, and puts it on when she's walking in the street and doesn't have to talk to anybody.
To jump from "it's a barrier to communication" to "let's ban it" is a bit too far, wouldn't you say?
And I've already addressed your arguments about the Jedi Knight etc. Where there is a security need, women should be asked to show their face and they should comply.
Complain about this comment
Naked_ostrich post 318:
'...you said the ones who THINK they are wearing it of their own free will are ACTUALLY conditioned to think so. Erm ... do you realize how patronizing you are being to those women who choose to wear the hijab by being so dismissive about their choice to wear it? My sister - and one of her friends, a CONVERT who accepted Islam well into her 20's, and also wears the veil - are doctors. They have papers published and one of them's doing a PhD. They do not need you to think for them.'
I don't think being bright means you're free from being conditioned. The Socialist Workers at my university (late 80s) were unquestionably bright - but the underlying cause of their worrying and alienation was on the one hand wanting to fit in with a group and be accepted, on the other because having strong, 'different' views enabled them to put themselves above others. All the lefties loved talking about the need to 'educate'.
I think it's exactly the same with Muslim women who wear the burqa, or Muslim men who sport the big black beards and Muslim shifts. I've read countless articles about how burqas are not actually prescribed in Islam and noone in Pakistan etc used to wear them.
As I posted previously, I believe it's precisely converts to Islam and British-born Muslims who go in for this alienating and IMHO rather antisocial affectation.
Complain about this comment
Ah! NoblePushie! So I am incorrect in saying that my sister and her friend - and many other women like them - don't need anyone to think for them. Thank you so much - I will pass on the message that I have found someone to do so. How ... NOBLE of you! I'm sure she will really appreciate it!
Complain about this comment
To jump from "it's a barrier to communication" to "let's ban it" is a bit too far, wouldn't you say?
And I've already addressed your arguments about the Jedi Knight etc. Where there is a security need, women should be asked to show their face and they should comply.
_______________________________________________________________________
Personaly I don't like the idea of banning things, it does go against the grain of liberty. Problem is that some Muslims are being beligerent about it and refusing to adhere to the cultural norms of their adopted country. I simply can not see any reason just like the vast majority of Muslims why you can not show your face in public. Intergration is a 2 way street and if you can not even go that small step then in my book you have failed.
No you have not addressed my arguments about jedi knights etc. Security is basically everywhere, town centres, shops, public buildings, airports etc. That should mean taking it off completely, not just having to raise it when security ask.
Frankly I think you sister is just plain rude, and entirely wrong. I would imagine as a doctor she is intelligent and would have a natural empathy with people due to her chosen profession. So why does she choose to live in the West and offend (in the case of France 74%) 3 out of every 4 people she passes on the street.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am sorry to have gone off the subject here, but the issue is really not why people wear the Hijab, it is why people emigrate to countries with liberal norms and expect to modify the ways of the citizens of these countries.
I hate to say this, but I agree that those who want to live the old way of life should really stay in their countries of origins.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From an earlier post. Something which I agree with.
Complain about this comment
#298 WA++
Complain about this comment
OK, Naked_Ostrich, put me right. Why do Muslim women in Britain wear burqas / veils if not for the reasons I suspect? You said 'You're saying that putting a barrier in front of the face is a barrier to communication. Again, I agree with you, and it is for this reason that my mother chooses not to veil her face, and why my sister takes off her veil when she's seeing patients, and puts it on when she's walking in the street and doesn't have to talk to anybody.'
So why wear the veil at all? I accept in a sense it's a person's right, and a veil is not half as alienating as a burqa. Nevertheless it sends a strong signal that the person is not prepared to communicate, is shrouded in difference, and is not part of the rest of society. Not society here anyway. So trivialise it and call me small-minded, closet-racist and what else comes easy. But tell me what you think is behind the wish to cover oneself up in such a medieval way when the person has been born and brought up in a modern, open country.
Complain about this comment
Devon post 322: 'the issue is really not why people wear the Hijab, it is why people emigrate to countries with liberal norms and expect to modify the ways of the citizens of these countries.'
Is it? Isn't it actually the case that the original Muslim people who moved here did so out of the plain and simple desire to improve the quality of their and their children's lives, and it is their children or grandchildren who - in a *minority* of cases - are aggressively asserting a heritage, an identity, that fufils their need for sense of belonging but has largely been invented by modern extreme adherents?
Complain about this comment
Msg 325. Noble Pushie
I believe so to a certain extent. I lived in Pakistan in the early 90s and you rarely saw a burka, the only place was out in the villages in the tribal areas. Certainly in the cities women would cover themselves up with traditional clothes and headscafes, but they didn't cover their face. Also don't remember the burka being an issue from around 10 years ago in the UK or France, yet both countries have had a sizable Muslim community for over 40 years.
As for those going on about freedom of choice of what to wear I see it as 2 extremes. On one hand you can have a naturist who believes in wearing nothing, and on the other the burka. Freedom of choice is one thing, but that does need to be tempered with not wanting to offend the wider public. For what it's worth I think the naked rambler is bit of an idiot fro the same reason, just because he thinks it okay to walk around in public naked, others don't share his opinion, nor do the police who keep nicking him.
What I have not seen is why do burka wearers think they have the right to offend those in the wider community. To see this blog at over 300 posts, and numerous over ones, those who wear the burka must be fully aware of the offence they cause to others, just wonder how they justify it.
Complain about this comment
NoblePushie - thanks for accepting that it's a person's right. That's exactly what I've been saying. I don't see why my sister finds it necessary to cover her face when walking down the street, but I accept it's her right to do so. Ergo, banning it is unacceptable. QED.
The reason why she wears it I think I explained in my very first post.
Devon - thanks for saying you don't like the idea of banning things. To you I'd say something very similar to what I said to Noble: I don't understand why my sister can't just show her face when walking down the street. But again ... it's her right to do so. And as you said yourself, banning it would go against the grain of liberty.
And as for security ... do you really think France will be a much safer place if the 1900 women there show their faces? My prediction is that banning the burqa will give an unmeasurable increase in security ... (a) even now, despite it not being banned, there are so few people using it to commit crimes anyway, and (b) you can always stick a bomb underneath your coat if you're intent on blowing stuff up.
Complain about this comment
Moonwolf
Re #91
Oh for goodness sake!
Bras are not some sort of religious tokenism.
They are much more important, interesting and informative than that!
TeeHee...
Whilst our Muslim brethren go... 'there you are, see... all that crudity, lust, degrading of females...'
And I riposte... Get a life! You're not running mine and you're not going to run 50% of the population's headwear clothing choices either!
Especially as my 36 yr old daughter suggested I write this comment.
Complain about this comment
msi
Re #233
"...they (Muslim women) have equal rights since 1,300 years.."
"... look at Islam, it shows you how to prevent this hideous crime (female rape).."
Yes, and that included Prophet Muhammad's 9 year old girl bride, did it?
She obviously had all the choice!
Honestly, when some followers of Islam write as if the Qur'an explains everything, I do sometimes wonder if they have actually read it in a meaningful sense or just learnt the the chant version!?
Complain about this comment
cool-brush and MaudDib,
I think one point many Europeans miss here is the general picture, of the shape-up of the continent, the lay-out on the ground.
For people in Western societies, protected by able police, just and open law system, surrounded by video-cams spying and recording on all corners, living in advanced and high-tech post-modernists societies, but most importantly - feeling that they are still the majority who calls the shots and it's the others who have to adapt, not them - for they are feeling they are at home, in their predominantly Christian old lands - so the question is for them indeed of abstract importance - "how much 1,900 burka-s around are dangerous and if so exactly what consequances?".
As Isaac has pointed out - like, get a grip what trifles, "I believe you can measure the size of someone's mind by the concerns that preoccupy it. In history, the wearing of veils by a few thousand women in a few countries will go down as a non-event."
And what gives you, Isaac, such peace of mind? The assuredness, that it will always be a minor problem, that the lands where burka is in question now will much longer stay the Christian culture lands?
I did not skip the posts pointing that many who are heavy Islam followers, practise it "by the book" right now, are fresh converts from Christian origins. Or Muslims, who practised no "Islam by the book" during the prev. century, for one reason or another - and now are freshly inspired. From trdaitional Islamic lands where now Islam made a mighty come back.
It is true. Islam is "in fashion". It is growing. Its admirers grow in number, fact. The "old" nations who have always had this religion are also growing, in simple mathematical quantity. Their societies are young. In Turkey the majority of population - by the look of it - is between ages 13 and 25. Same in the Russia's "under-belly", the Muslim belt. They are young, eager, lively societies, growing.
It is not a wrong question to ask what is exactly the equilibrium now, why it holds and for how long will it hold?
May I remind all that collapse of the USSR and communism dusted into the garbage bin (I don't dispute it belonges there) 20 years ago had some interesting side effects than not many ever thought of. Namely - there aren't "Red Comissars" LOL now around eager to keep 350 million people of ex-USSR as atheists, at the point of a gun. Type "either you are an atheist - or else".
All are happily back to old religious practices "interrupted for 80 years". Christians to their Christian rhymes, Muslims - to their Muslim ceremonies, Buddhist, Jewish, etc.
And the degree of how much exactly religious these societies, new 15 countries on the map suddenly, chose to be - is entirely up to them.
Kremlin doesn't control them any longer. Brussels doesn't. Nobody does.
It's up to them, what they feel is right and what they will become.
Western Europeans somehow funny forget about 200 million Muslims right nearby. You thought they are all communists and atheists? Old news.
From what we in Russia are seeing on daily basis, the taste for Islam is great. Very, how to say, yet "un-saturated market". Which will only grow, in the near future. Islamisation will grow. Can't tell about "10 years later", how the fashion will turn up or around, but at the moment -fact. Islam is eagerly embraced in ex-Muslim lands, who were not religious in the 20th century. At the threat of Gulag.
You thought the only "nearby" Islam strongholds are "Saudi Arabia", Gaza and Pakistan? Three ha ha. Much nearer to you than you think.
So, what have we got here. The EU - 450 million people?
Russia - 140 million. Of which Russion Orthodox and Jewish and Buddhists and a handful of smaller religions and atheists make up, say, 60%.
Say, roughly, 90 million people in the Russian Fed. not practising Islam.
540.
Now, places where 100 million burka-s were taken off by force in 1918-1920. There live 230 million people roughly currently. Plus Turkey. Plus Russian Fed. muslims - Caucasus, Chechnya, Tatarstan.
Yes, looks this side of the continent still has the non-Islam heavy weight.
But the ratio is not "1,900 burka-s for miles around", especially of you also count muslim communities within the EU.
It looks more like 30/70 per cent, on a broader picture. Which can be quite a press - should one side get minded to press.
's
c's has pointed out -
Complain about this comment
I'll try again.
Yes there should be freedoms of what you can wear, I don't have a problem with that. However like all freedoms there does have to be limits. I can not get up in the morning and decide that today I will wear nothing and go and do my shopping in Waitrose naked. The reason is obvious as it would offend some people and is against the cultural norms of the country. The same goes for the burka, whether muslims like it or not it is seen as offensive by some, and is against the cultural norms of the country.
As a slight side issue last year in Vietnam I brought a T shirt which was red with the gold star on it, the national flag of Vietnam. I didn't take it on holiday to France as it could have upset some due to the history of the 2 countries. That is the difference between me and many Muslims on this blog. I am willing to consider other peoples feelings and dress accordingly which still gives me huge leeway in what I choose to wear.
YOU DO HAVE A FREEDOM OF CHOICE OF WHAT TO WEAR.
YOU DO NOT HAVE A FREEDOM OF CHOICE TO DELIBERATLY OFFEND THE CULTURE YOU ARE IN.
I have yet to hear why any Muslim thinks that their right to wear the burka trumps other peoples right not to be offended. What is coming across is alot of ME ME ME I I I I have the right to wear what I like and couldn't give two hoots what other people think.
So for the last time can you justify why you think you have the right to be provocative and offend some against their mores and culture of a western secular modern country.
Complain about this comment
Devon - I find it offensive when I see the youth of today with a million piercings, lashings of mascara, tattoos or bright pink mohicans. A sizeable number of people in this country my age think the same. Should we ban them? Is my right not to be offended greater than their right of self-expression?
cool_brush_work - THANK YOU for saying something which so far no-one has had the guts to say. Personally I think Islam is shameful in its treatment of women.
However, whether we like/understand it or not, it is a fact that many bright, (western)-educated women are comfortable with the limitations that Islam imposes on them and choose to follow its ordainments. To dismiss their convictions as "brainwashing", "conditioning" and so on, is naive. I say find and help the ones who are being oppressed by their families, and as for the ones who actually WANT to voluntarily dress themselves in a black sack ... let them get on with it!
Complain about this comment
Oh sorry, I forgot to say something else. This whole debate is clearly nothing about "liberating" muslim women who wear the burqa (from other posts on this blog it should be clear that most have no need or want for it). It is also, I think, nothing about Western people being shocked and scandalized by the sight of someone wearing a burqa - being one myself, I find that hard to believe, and certainly not in the way that Devon equates it to indecent exposure. Maybe that's her/his personal view, but I'm 100% sure that if you had a survey done whether people would prefer to see a person in a burqah or a naked person walking down the high street while they were taking their kids to the shops ...
The French burqa ban is clearly meant to give Islam a poke in the eye. That I applaud. But there must be a better way to do it than violating one of the principles (freedom of expression) that we hold so dear.
Complain about this comment
PinkFreud ... great user name :-D Erm ... I think we have an easy truce going? I don't agree with your views on Islam, but as someone famous once said, I would fight to the death for your right to have them. Anyhow, thanks for answering Devon on my behalf.
I'll tell you what really annoys me about the whole thing. Crackpot Muslim fundamentalists are going to use this legislation as ammunition to radicalize a whole new generation of suicide bombers and terrorists ... and then when they finally manage to pull off something like 7/7 again, life will just get harder for the average Abdul the plumber, people like my family who just want to get on with our lives and mind our own business.
Complain about this comment
woops i meant uneasy truce in the last post, obviously
Complain about this comment
Sorry but neither of you 2 has answered my question. I put it in block capitals in the vein hope that you might see it. Mind you it is about the 4th time of asking and not a reply that makes any sense.
Crackpot Muslim fundermentalists!!!!! Are you serious. One of the biggest problems with where Islamic fundermentalists come from is isolation from the wider community. The lack of understanding, dialog and interaction between communities. And rightly or wrongly some see the burka as being part of that voluntary apartheid.
Offending the wider community by putting up a mask seperating you from them is bound to cause resentment and suspecion. If Abdul the plumber wants someone to complain about maybe he should come and see you with your beligerent, selfish attitude to intergration of why he is finding life harder. I do have genuine sympathy with normal Muslims who have made a good stab at intergration and imagine that many are fed up with the antics of some who wish to be provocative and cause trouble between communities.
If you really can not see why it puts normal peoples backs up I feel sorry for you. The French are having to bring in laws to force some of the intransient Muslims to at least give a passing nod to integration, this and other blogs, endless newspaper articles should have made it crystal clear by now that the burka isn't welcome, yet you still can not give me a legitimate reason why you and others persist in wearing it.
Complain about this comment
I have read so many great posts today by
Moonwolf...A
Noble..A
Naked big bird...A
Isaac...A
Cracklite...B++ (you equated me with G Bush????)
Devon...A
Maria Ashot... A++++ (for withstanding the pulling of her apart for her "logic" and remarkable writing ability, then these ....these .."philosophers".... forgetting to put her back together..afterward
....COLD)
Freeborn John, CBWork...A++ (for remembering so much of his/their education)
MauDib...A
and last, yet most ably
Web Alice ...A++++ (for using the art of writing well, knowledge, humor and for giving a different perspective on a long term issue...
and for making me laugh..when all my Many allergies and high blood pressure -- and history of a major stroke (20 yrs ago) -- were combining with my meds to cause me to ..feel so "high" last night, that I removed my "quit smoking med from my diet" today...just to see???)
Thank you, All,
...well....most...I mean, well...some:)
Complain about this comment
Also,
a question, What is:
the difference between Separation of church and state
and Freedom of Religion?
Complain about this comment
David, I am honoured to make it into your Hall of Fame :-)
Devon, I thought PinkFreud's answer makes perfect sense. I'm guessing that you didn't answer his question about whether his right not to be offended by tattoos, etc, is greater than the right of the tattooee to self-expression, because you know what the answer is.
I'll do a deal with you. Let's make a list of everything that offends a sizeable number of people: the burqa, "a million piercings, lashings of mascara, tattoos or bright pink mohicans", talking loudly on mobile phones on the train, body odour, playing music on the tinny speakers on mobile phones ... let's make a comprehensive list together. If you stand by your word that "people's right not to be offended etc" and ask for a ban on everything on the list - then yes, I'll support a ban on the burqa as well. Deal?
And as for where radicalized Muslims come from ... don't even go there - I've actually been to Finsbury Park Mosque a couple of times (don't worry, I didn't know its reputation when I stepped in), and this is precisely the sort of thing they use to justify a holy war. I disagree with your assessment that terrorists come from isolated families - look at the doctor who tried to bomb Glasgow Airport.
Complain about this comment
Naked Ostrich, sorry but I am going to have to try again.
By saying that you don't like a million piercings, tattoos........ Is no different from me saying I don't like burkas.
What I want answered is "I have lots of tattoos because......In your case what I don't understand is that other than the burka you portray yourself as a 'moderate' (awful term) Muslim. So can you answer "I believe in wearing the burka, even though I know it is against the culture and mores of the country and offends many because..........and that is why I justify wearing it.
I'm sure you have read this thread and the other with the interview with the French lady who wears the burka. There has been many well constructed arguments as to why the burka should be banned including, culture, tradition, communication, integration, law and order, there are limits to personal choice, already bans on the wearing of clothing and so on. Granted I am biased, but haven't yet heard a decent argument coming from the burka wearer, just tends to be a lot of 'freedom of choice' without explaining why that choice is made.
Complain about this comment
Shah
Re #262
I know you were rightly trying to refute the idea that it is 'muslims' and not all 'Faiths' who are responsible for most fighting/deaths in recent years (MariaAshot #238) when you wrote the following:
"...most people died in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of Christian beliefs.."
However, to be clear the above sentence by you is wholly inaccurate.
It is most certainly factually correct that the major cause of the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 stems from the US-UK (and NATO) invasions and campaigns (i.e. aggression by supposedly 'christian' based nations) in those 2 very unfortunate countries.
Nevertheless, you have conflated all the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan as being directly at the hands of the invading military when nothing of the sort has been or is the case.
According to UNO figures (plus independent Aid/Charity/NGO) People killed in Iraq by the US-UK armed forces is at about a deplorable 65,000: Whereas the numbers of Iraqis killed by Iraqis (and 'foreign' Islamic militants) in the internecine civil strife of the main 3 Iraqi groupings - - Shia, Sunni & Kurd - - is an incredible 455,000+.
It is a similar sadly horrendous statistical fact in Afghanistan: Far more Afghanis have died as a result of Muslim action against Muslim - - the casualties from indiscriminate mass suicide-bombings, rival tribal/gang massacres, Taliban atrocities etc. far outnumber any other factor - - rather than as the direct action of the Multi-National coalition forces. Grievous though the number (approx 27,000 2002-09) is for dead arising from 'Coalition' forces' combat actions it is only a third of all violence related deaths and the Taliban + its allies are responsible for the much higher figure.
That is of course not the same as stating the tragically huge number of deaths in both nations could have happened had the 'west'/'christian' Governments not made the aggressive-policy decisions to recklessly invade: Tragedies made even more grim by the gross unpreparedness for any aftermath of invasion and especially without any clear policy of when conditions would be met for the how and why to withdraw.
All the same, it might assist in the overall perception and reception of Islamic society (e.g. even the relatively petty disputes on Burkas, Minarets etc.) within the 'west', if followers of Islam did start to acknowledge factual reality of the harm done to Muslims by Muslims and not simply lash out as if everything is all the fault of an anti-Islam, pernicious 'west'
Complain about this comment
Devon:
"By saying that you don't like a million piercings, tattoos........ Is no different from me saying I don't like burkas. "
It was actually me who doesn't like those things, but anyway. You're exactly right. And, I think, that's the point Naked Ostrich was making. So if you're justified in calling for a ban on the burka, am I justified in calling for a ban on those things?
Why don't you take Naked Ostrich up on her (I assume she's a "her") offer to start a campaign to ban EVERYTHING that people find offensive? I for one think that people talking loudly on their mobile phones is a MUCH stronger cause for offence than the burka. How many times have you heard people complaining about that, compared to the number of times you hear people complaining that they saw someone wearing the burka?
Or do you just want to pick on the burqa, for reasons best known to yourself? If so, please do enlighten us as to why you think the burka should be singled out for banning.
Complain about this comment
David immediately buy yourself a carton of ordinary grapefruit juice, not real squeezed, any, restored back, from pulp or powder, will do. I buy Tropicana but only because only they make grapefruit cartons here any brand will do the same provided it's grapefruit. This isn't long term solution to high BP but it kicks it down at once when you drink couple of glasses or a whole litre the first day. Helps many but not all. For ex. to my mum helps nil, even if I make her drink litres. But to me helps. You will see at once - gulp a glass and see how you feel. Must be that things will get clear and vision sharp and you come back to senses. One glass won't harm you anyway even if proves useless. In the worst scenario you have simply drank a glass of juice.
But beware grapefruit is the only fruit around that interacts somehow crazily with medications, many companies simply state it in the paper instructions to medications "can't be taken together with grapefruit", "can be taken together with grapefruit - research done", but many companies never tested it, how it goes with grapefruit and thus mention nil.
To be on the safe side - either you take medications and avoid grapefruit, OR you don't take any medications whatsoever - and then it is alright to have a glass of grapefruit juice.
I drink 2-3 litres when BP gets out of hand and it helps at once, immediately, in 2 minutes, so don't continue if the first glass doesn't help - it either helps at once or not at all.
Complain about this comment
reply to Pink Freud.
Talking loudly on mobile phones, not standing close enough to the soap and the other examples given are very different. For what it is worth I think these sorts of people are ignorant, and if you wish to start a petition for banning them that is your democratic right.
I think the burka is an entirely different argument. As I have asked why those who choose to wear it, then it is only fair that I answer why it should be banned. So in no particular order.
1. Communication. An excellent post on the other thread that stated that 70% of communication was non verbal. To hold a face to face meeting with someone means just that. This is a blog, and only so much can be drawn from it. Far more could be learned from a face to face meeting, just in the same way that a company will get CVs, but the best may not get the job, it will be down to interview. Body language is important and often on a sub conscious level, you get a 'feeling' about somebody.
2. Cultural, traditional and social mores. The short answer is 'when in Rome', but it does go much further than that. As stated before I do not have a problem with headscafes etc, I don't expect or want to see immigrants wearing plus 4s saying "Tally ho old boy". Everything in its place, I don't do my shopping wearing a thong because that would be against the culture and have no wish to offend people. Which ever way you like it or not it is a western culture and I believe that the majority of the onus for integration falls on the immigrant. It is down to them to moderate some of their views as they have chosen to come and live in the West. That does still leave an enormous range of choice in what you wish to wear as the west is very diverse.
3. Fairness and law and order. There is good reason why western culture has developed to show the face. To hide the face gives out a signal rightly or wrongly that the individual is up to no good. Be that Dick Turpin stlye or wearing a ski mask robbing a bank. For some reason burkas have been allowed whilst other forms of face covering have not. You can't wear a hoddie in Bluewater, a cowl in Tescos and would imagine if you turned up at Heathrow wearing a ninja hood it would cause you more trouble than it is worth. BTW there has been a spate of robberies with men dressed in burkas, a quick google will verify.
4. Freedon of choice to wear anything. That is not true, there are laws the most obvious one being the 1936 act on wearing political uniforms. I think this was to stop Molsley and his blackshirts. Could you argue that the burka is a uniform showing alliegence to a form of political Islam. You would also get nicked by wearing offensive slogans T shirts, and not sure about the UK, but certainly Germany it is illegal to wear Nazi style uniforms.
5. Integration. I strongly believe that one of the best ways to break down barriers between communities is interaction, dialog and simply talking to people. The burka puts up a barrier to that and sends out completely the wrong message. Take the sister who is a doctor as an example. She takes off her veil when dealing with patients, but puts it on when walking the streets. She may see 40 people in the day who realise that there is nothing to fear and she is a nice lady, but then walks home down a busy street and passes 1000 people. Given the French figure that 74% want a ban on burkas, that is 740 people who she has offended. Whether those people believe that she has some Islamic agenda, is being forced to wear it doesn't matter a jot whether they are right or wrong, it is their perception and that is what they think.
It is no surprise that the far right have been making gains across western Europe. Before in the days of the National front their target was the balck and jewish community, that has switched to the Muslim community and they have done very well from it. Look at LePen, Gert Wilders, Nick Griffin all who have no qualms about targetting the Muslim community for their own political ends. It is very much a ying, yang thing, get immigrants and their decendents to mix and become involved in the wider community, to fully integrate but still keep their religion and beliefs will pull people towards the centre ground, ergo the extremists on both sides will lose their power. The wearing of the burka gives of the signal of isolationism and wanting nothing to do with modern western culture, instead to look towards the East rather than the West. Again whether that is a right or wrong perception doesn't matter, it is what many believe. From what Naked Ostich has written it appears that she has done well at integration other than wearing the burka. For me, she and others like her are just making a rod for their own back and giving the far right an open goal to demonise them. Totally counter productive.
6. Tradition. Joe Bloggs jeans were out before the burka was being worn in the UK. It never used to be seen on the streets of the UK from about 10 years ago, other than a Saudi wife visiting London. I have yet to understand why it has become so popular in recent years, and as above I believe it is counter productive in social cohesion.
I fully understand that just banning the burka isn't going to solve the problems that do exist, but it would be a step in the right direction. Asking someone to just show their face in public should not be that bigger deal, and the vast majority of Muslims have no problem with it at all. I would prefer not to ban things as it does go against the grain, much better for those who do wear it to realise that it is offensive to some in the West and for the sake of social cohesion and to show good faith they volunteer not to wear it in public.
Complain about this comment
Devon, thank you for rehashing comments which have already been made and to which counterarguments have already been given.
I have no wish to take this into a circular conversation, so if you don't mind, I'll ignore your bulletted points. I would, however, like to point out that an equally eloquent and comprehensive list could be made against body odour or talking on mobile phones, so why don't you just join up with Naked Ostrich and call for a ban on those as well? I notice you have avoided her offer, and are just advising me that I am within my democratic rights to do so - a fact that I very well know.
Complain about this comment
Body odour can help social cohesion?
Anyhow you are right we are just going round in circles, and the sun is coming out and I'm off to sunbathe. Hope no one takes offence at looking at my body, even though i am wearing shorts.
Complain about this comment
Thank you, WA and Naked,
I sucked on a bp med. I think I'll be fine.:)
Complain about this comment
AND I love grapefruit juice mmmmm.
Complain about this comment
WA,
I SEE fine. I meant I will find out in the future how I feel (blush)
:)
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry, but I'm determined to have the last word on this topic. And here it is: SCHNARF.
Complain about this comment
hey! how you come you haven't moderated all that stuff about grapefruit juice and what not??
Complain about this comment
it is important to have core audience alive.
:o)))
David glad for you keep it on.
Complain about this comment
Surely many here are taking this far too seriously, and not decisively enough.
This is a wind up, and adolescent pseudo-religious ploy to take the west for a ride, and some are rising to the bait.
This is evidenced by the fact that many in mature Muslim countries like Egypt, Turkey, and even most of Pakistan, burka wearing is almost non-existent, or regarded as backward tribalistic behaviour.
Treating it as you would an arrogant teenager being a nuisance, would surely put it more in correct context, and, at the same time create a resonance with the vast majority of mature Muslims who look sideways at these antics of their own kind, and despair of seeing supposedly grown up democracies make fools of themselves and tying themselves in knots over how to deal with it.
In their own countries they have no trouble in putting upstarts in their place; take a walk around Rawalpindi late at night, and you won't find any gangs of hoodlums an yobbos hanging around to try making fools of their elders.
Intellectual idiots with their multicultural and PC nostrums have bamboozled us into losing our commonsense.
Time to take it back.
Complain about this comment
colonel, I share your admiration of Rawalpindi. Rather, of one man there, Mr Minoo Bhandara, who was a friend.
Complain about this comment
Colonel,
You make an intersting point, and I have to wonder how many British born Muslims who choose to wear the burka and whose family originate from Rawalpindi would wear it when they went back for a holiday to see their family.
Complain about this comment
355 Devon 11.27am
Devon - I would reckon a massive zero as the number to postulate.
To turn up in that gear from the west would be to face a massive embarrassment at the the incredulity of those relatives in Pak, who would never dream of wearing it.
They know full well that in Pakistan, they have to respect their elders or face serious censure, and anyone parading immature adolescent pseudo-religious antics like phoney burka wearing would face some pretty caustic questioning that they would be unable to answer.
In UK, Muslims will always tend to close ranks to protect the behaviour of their own, no matter how stupid and immature it may be. That's the way the culture works. Amongst themselves however, the evaluation would be a different matter.
We, have to simply not give them anything to close ranks about; treat it as they would themselves - as adolescent behaviour of people who are religiously immature.
Be firm, and mature about it, and above all, don't take it too seriously (!) - that just makes the west look like a bunch suckers to those from the east, and there, no one is quite so despised for not using their brains and commonsense, as a sucker.
Complain about this comment
I tend to agree with you colonel.
A poster on the other thread was telling of his experience of shopping in Leicester, England, and the amount of burka wearers he saw. From my knowledge of that city I think I am right in saying that the majority of those who are Muslim come from a Pakistani background.
Given what we are discussing it does rather blow a hole in the argument of wearing the burka in France, or anywhere else in the West for that matter. Just how do they justify that to wear it here is all part of their religious beliefs, but would not wear it in an Islamic country. One would have thought it would be the other way around.
As for not taking it too seriously, I can't agree there. In itself the burka is a trivial matter, but the larger picture on integration of Muslims into Europe is a serious subject and getting more so by the day. Have seen a youtube clip put on another BBC MB which shows Geert Wilders up in court about his film Fitma? Some posters on here have remarked that there is anti-Islamic sentiment building up in Europe, and to a certain degree they are right. Many issues on Muslim integration are going to have to be addressed in the EU, as to just hope that it sorts itself out is IMO folly and can only lead to trouble.
Complain about this comment
357 Devon
Sorry Devon - if you take it seriously, they will take it seriously. That is the way of the Culture, that reacts to protects it's own.
In a country like Pakistan, where there is no Social Security or services to speak of, people know well that sticking together in the face of adversity is absolutely essential to survival; these habits are deeply ingrained, and are automatic whether their side is right or wrong. Reason hardly comes into it.
But, that society also has an equally deeply ingrained habit of respect for its elders ( which our own 'developed / educated'culture has thrown overboard and therefore finds it hard to comprehend).
That is the strata to work with, talk to and act with and through. Most of the elders respect and value Britain, and came here to get away from the grinding difficulties in their home countries. They have almost all done well, and do not want to see their position here jeopardised by hothead youngsters with a feeble grasp of religion and no experience of life in an Islamic country.
Islam in the west can not be eradicated or thrown overboard, but it can be worked with ( to mutual benefit I might add citing for one the instance of respect for elders above), and mutual respect and peace can prevail.
There is no short cut; it requires understanding, respect, and hard work on both sides, but, taking too seriously a small number of people wearing burkas is not the best or right way.
It may appeal to the French, who are drama queens themselves in handling any protest, but it is not appropriate here, and we should rise above it. We have a long history of mutual experience and respect with the Indian subcontinent and Arab nations, which we can draw one , which others do not.
Justthink of the burka wearers as odd balls in their culture as well as ours; they are on the same strata of development as our punks who shock us and put two fingers up by wearing chains, pins through their lips/ eyebrows/ nose,and turn up at employment offices demanding to be taken seriously as an applicant for a job in a bank.
It's a wind up Devon - see it for what it is.
Complain about this comment
I agree with what you said about Pakistan, that was pretty much my take on it when I was there.
Not so sure on the punk analogy. The nialist/anarchist punk of yesteryear is now Steve in engineering with a wife and 2 kids, That is true by the way as I work with such a bloke, I myself was bit of a punk, then a mod, though most grew out of it by their early 20s.
Granted there are lots of young women who wear the burka but the age demographic appears to be much higher with them taking it through to adult life and well into their 30s. If it is just a wind up, then it is a wind up which is well and trully shooting themselves and their fellow Muslims in the foot.
BTW, someone on another message board posted a youtube link showing Muslims taking over streets in Paris and praying on the pavement. Have you any idea what that is all about?
Complain about this comment
359 Devon
The practice of praying en-masse on the pavement is quite common for Muslims in India, so it may not be wise to read too much into it such as the phrase 'taking over the pavements' implies. It may be that there are a lot of Muslim shopkeepers and other workers in a certain area, where there is no Mosque, and so that is all they can do.
I still get the feeling that, in spite of being to Pakistan, you're still taking the burka thing at face value and too seriously; yes there are older women who wear it, but they are almost certainly people who have been with it from childhood, and come over here with it, and are only in a minority. The ones we should be talking about are the poseurs, the 'I'm going to make a statement about my religion' ones, where it is likely only skin deep.- That is the connection with the punk, 60's kaftan wearers ( me),the blue suede shoes Teddy Boys, etc, who, as you say, grow up to be service engineers, building foremen etc.
'Grow up' is the give away, that's why the best thing is not to react, not to take it too seriously, and work with the Muslim elders in UK towards good relations and understanding.
You cannot do this authentically if you are panicking and paranoid about some immature behaviour in a small section of the culture you are dealing with.
It shows, and they lose respect for you, seeing you buying this charade at face value.
Complain about this comment
Maria Ashot
Well Said ! You are right to the point on this subject .
As I have understood , one of the reason for wearing the Burkha is that in primative countries , which most muslim countries are , men are inclined to stare offensively at women , might molest or rape them .
Inside a Burkha , women are safe from the view of men who might ogle or fancy them .
In European countries , most men have sufficient civility not to stare at women in that way . If a western woman visits an islamic country and dresses inappropriately , she will cause offence . When Islamic women are in a European country wearing the Burkha , that causes offence to many Europeans , myself included .
Women in the west are free to dress as they please , within sane reason , live their own lives without constraint . I am among many who like to see women free and equal to men . Islam does not permit women that same freedom of self determination that western men and women accept as women right .
With the invasion of Europe by islamic people , we Europeans are forced to restrain ourselves , lest we offend islamics . We may not have crosses in our schools and public buildings , we are discouraged from wearing a cross on a chain around our necks . Muslims are permitted freedom to build mosques and wear the burkha which gravely offends us . Yes , it is seen as an expression of Hate against women in our culture . Are Europeans no longer permitted to have a space on earth that is of wholly European culture ?
Islamic women are in no danger of being stared at and molested in Europe , it is an insult to our civility to wear the burkha .
I live in Thailand now , where women are the most free and equal that I have seen anywhere . It is part of Thai culture to dress modestly , not to appear overtly sexual . In my rural village I am always so pleased to see that little girls can safely go out and play all over the village , just as the boys do , most often boys and girls together . There seem to be more women in higher education than men . The governor of the bank of Thailand is a woman in her forties .
The Burkha is a symbol of ancient primitive culture , as is female circmcision .
Complain about this comment
Huaimek 361
Seems to have a basis. My niece, who is Asian, and 23yrs, complains that the only people in UK who try to touch her up in lifts etc, are Asian or African men.
Complain about this comment
The burka is as much a political statement as a naked woman walking in the streets to advocate public nudity as a right which should be accepted by the rest of society.
Nudism is a cultural and political movement advocating and defending social nudity in private and in public. It may also refer to a lifestyle based on personal, family and/or social nudism.
Society in general has decided public nudism can be very confronting, inappropriate, and even regarded as obscene by some. Although nudism is often practiced in a person's home or garden, either alone or with members of the family public and in restricted venues public nudity is a behaviour which society in general have deemed should be restricted and subject to judicial penalty.
In my opinion the burka is much more of an obscenity than nudity. For where nudism seeks to expand the societal bounds and diminish prejudice the burka politically advocates a denigrating , subservient role in society for women.
The burka reinforces the notion women are not only to blame for men’s behaviour towards them in regards sexual assaults but also women’s aspirations should be necessarily be different and subservient to a man’s definition of what a woman’s life should be.
The public wearing of the burka is a categorical political act which seeks to advance the notion of the acceptance of the subservience and restriction of women’s opportunities in life relative to men which is absolutely obscene and must therefore be subject to judicial penalty.
Complain about this comment
MUSLIM PETITION TO 10 DOWNING STREET AND REPLY
Petition information -
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Anti-veilban/
You signed a petition asking the Prime Minister to "Condemn the movement bySarkozy to ban the veil in the streets of France"
The Prime Minister's Office has responded to that petition and you can view it here:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page22231
Complain about this comment
If a women wants to cover her body, show no feminine parts or her beauty then i believe it is her choice and we live in a 'free' & 'democratic' world, then she should be aloud to do anything she wants.
I thought this is the 'freedom' Bush and Blair go on about...
having the freedom to do, wear whatever you want?
French president has no right to make such a decision, Islam teaches a women to cover her beauty, so that no man may be out to trial.
She is alowed to only reveal it infront of those who she loves.
Isnt that what you do with your precious belongings? You dont go around
showing everyone your precious stones, or riches... only those who you love and trust.
This is the Point of the Nikab, that she only displays her beauty to those close to her.. what is wrong with that. I personaly think if more women wore the nikab... the rates of Rape and crimes against women would drematicaly fall...
In America every 6.5 seconds, a women is being raped.
Amnesty international said that aprox every 10mins a women is being raped in england or is sexualy assulted.. or violent crimes are being commited.. You have more Peadophiles in this country than anywhere else in the world. How can you say that muslim men stare at women in their countries?.. They're just staring, here, they're being raped beaten abused. Look at the stats on how many british fathers Abuse their female infant daughters!... You'll be shocked!
To those who say being Nude is better... I say would say you are insane.
Just because the women choses to wear a hijab or nikab dosnt make her unsociable. If you ever went and spoke to a lady with it on, then you'd realise how wrong you are. They are not being forced by anyone to wear it. Most choose to wear it themselfs and this makes them happy. So who is anyone else to belittle them?
As for the man, pretending to be from pakistan, and then belittling the country, You have no idea what your talking about, ask the 3.4 million Jews and christians living in lebonon and iran. Ask the millions of Jews and Christians who live in iraq, yemen, malasia pakistan, bangladesh and many other mulim countries, and ask them if they have ever felt excluded from society?!!
Wakeup.. This is a Attack on the civil rights of people, And no leader has the right to challange them.
Complain about this comment
this attention given to the question of women wearing the burka has made me think of the wearing of the burka by men.How would you know?How would anyone know?
does this question ever arise in those countries where women commonly wear the
burka? Does Fatima ever think, when she goes into the ladies' loo in downtown Riyadh,
that the person beside her might be a man? What a scope it gives to the possibilities
for cross-dressing. An aunt of mine perhaps had a point when she said "Never trust a
man with small feet."
Complain about this comment
In light of today's event in Baghdad, where a female sucide bomber hid an explosive vest under her garment. Quote from BBC website today "The bomber had hidden the explosives under her abaya - a long, black over-garment, Maj Gen Qassim al-Moussawi told the Associated Press news agency."
These hideous garments need to banned from use in the whole world, not just in France.
Complain about this comment
#366
In Thailand and elsewhere you'd be wise to follow the adage "Never trust a woman with big feet"
Complain about this comment
It is just now in the news in France: French citizenship is denied to a Muslim man who asked his (French citizen wife) to wear the burka. Last year, citizenship was refused to a woman in burka (married to a French citizen and with 5 children).
I said “French citizen”, because in a big national debate they are trying to find out if burka and etc. wearing French citizens who cannot speak French properly and know nothing about France can or cannot be called “FRENCH”!
Complain about this comment
Where do you draw the line? Some Jews were special headdress to separate themselves from the rest. What about nuns and how they dress. I think it's completely intrusive for the government to tell the people what it can and cannot wear. That's fascist. They say it's for women's rights, so the government chooses for them, but if anything it will push these women further underground if they're really so oppressed. There are countless different communities living in France from a wide range of countries from Southeast Asia to Africa, Europe and the Americas.
Complain about this comment
I have read many of the comments posted on this site. Yesterday I had a heated debate (not my intention) at work with a Muslim colleague, about this very issue, stating I felt the wearing of the veil (the covering of the face) was a barrier to communication.
My colleague disagreed and stated I had got my ideas from the media and that it is the media, which creates such prejudices. I informed her that I can think for myself and should be allowed to voice my opinion. I would say that in this case the media is highlighting an issue and the feelings of the general population, which many feel unable to voice for themselves, in fear of being called prejudiced, as I was yesterday.
I have lived in another country and have abided by the rules and cultural restrictions within that country. This to my mind shows respect for the culture and beliefs of the people I resided with during that period.
Persons from different cultures and or those with different beliefs should first consider the culture and beliefs of the country in which they reside and if they truly want to feel part of and to be recognised by, their host country then they should be willing to compromise in order to fit in.
I am sure no one could argue that in the UK and most of Europe we have a great deal of freedom and while in other more repressed and backward thinking countries people would be jailed or put to death for their views and or beliefs, this is not the case in the UK (unless criminally intended).
The Muslim religion does not require women to cover their faces at all. Yet some Muslims have selected to interpret it this way. While it may be acceptable in Muslim dominated countries to do this (freely or otherwise) the covering of the face is not accepted in modernised Western cultures. The many reasons why have already been discussed in other comments posted here.
While some have stated they do not see the veil as a barrier to communication, they are forgetting that many deaf people rely on lip-reading to communicate. Should we deny this group the right to communicate with Muslim women purely because some women of this faith select to cover their faces with a piece of fabric? Similarly, most of our communication is via body language and facial expressions, to deny this to others will of course be viewed with suspicion - and the thoughts of what do have they have to hide.
While Muslims see this as denying their rights, is it not time Muslims consider the wider implications of this choice. Would they not prefer to integrate fully with the societies in which they choose to live, or do they, as many believe, not wish to integrate and live, (as another comment here describes) in a parallel but separate society? If so, society will remain divided and Muslims will continue to shout victimisation.
It is time that others in society stop feeling guilty and made to feel prejudiced simply for asking Muslims to comply with the rules our society has set and which its citizens are happy to live by.
Complain about this comment
I am so sick of stupid people going on about the burka is really good it protects women fom rape? I am so sick of the western world being accused of not getting it blah blah blah. I watched a documentry were pstchologist were saying that you are more likely to get raped in these countries because the burka gives men an excuse to rape women. It makes society them think it is their fault."I have never heared a women who was wearing a burka got raped" How do you know one of these women have not been raped? They might be getting raped but not reporting it because they blame themselves or they will get blamed by authorities or families which may result in punishment. The burka blams women for being raped all the time. Why? All the burka is is material. Women wore more material in the past and they were more likely to get raped then than now. This is because there are no burkas or anything that suggests that women are to be blamed for this action today. It is deemed unacceptable in the western soceity and punishes men for this action rightfully so. Women who have been raped must get upset or even angry hearing that the were so responsible for fate. They should have been smarter, more respectable and understood that material has magical powers that prevnt this sort of thing happeing. It is just stupid and nasty to imply that. Rape is a complex issue. Some calim it is linked with aggression and a need for control and that the rapest prefers for the victum to not want to sleep with them. They target women. Emphasis on the full stop. Women. I didnt say good looking or young women, just women. They need the women part that is it. I am going to have this part of the body regardless of wheter or not I am wearing a burka. The point I am making is rape is a complex issue, heck some people even rape animals becuse they are that messed up in the head. I just hate hate when people blame rape victums because they were not wearing this so called magical rapests protector. Do not come up with solutions to complex problems that you are not smart enough to understand. If the burka was that effective in proventing rape psychologist would be recommending it.
Complain about this comment
Re372: How did we end up digging this issue? Anyway, there are quite many parameters in that, which people really do not think at all.
First of all one should take into account that till 19th century few european women young or old would go out without a headscarf i.e. even our grandmothers wore it often but we tend to forget this. There was nothing particularly religious about it, it was more of a social convention, and more of practicality as most women did not bath very often (only prostitutes did it often in the past centuries). Hence, it was more convenient to have their head covered than go out with unwashed hair flying on all directions. While not any religious demand, the sight of a young woman with uncovered hair walking alone or even in company of her husband in the town's highstreet was potentially seen as a bit sexually provocative - something like the first women wearing trousers when today women wear so much trousers that it is considered as least sexually provocative while skirts even long ones are considered much more sensual. These things simply change but ideas changed slowly. However, what indeed had always of outmost importantance for westerners was eye AND facial expression. If one covered his/her face this meant an aggressive mood (assasins and rioters covered their faces) or showing total contempt for interlocutor (noble men and especially women when in presence of commoners often covered their faces) thus deemed unacceptable (only permitted for people mourning the death of a loved one).
In Asiatic cultures however, facial expression is less important, eye contact suffices. Nontheless, Middle Eastern women, just like European women would cover their faces in pretty much the same way and it was not really so different apart the case of the Arab dessert nomads. In the dessert, it is just not only women but men too who cover their faces for simple environmental reasons (hot sun, dessert sand etc.). Thus one would go around doing his job fully covered and he would take out the face cover only when inside his tent in front of his family. This nomadic tradition was deeply ingrained in them but really not the norm in ancient and early medieval Middle East (which was actually famous for its sensual women, e.g. Greeks and Romans seemed to prefer them any time over their own dull ones!). But with the advent of muslim religion things changed for the very simple reason that it was mainly the nomadic middle eastern people who spread the religion and that is why we see many nomadic-related cultural traits in muslim culture, one of them is the social norm of covering face which through the ages remained mainly for the women.
Now in the 20th century in the muslim world, there were various often conflicting tedencies. In the main muslim state, Ottoman Empire women were very restricted, much more than in Syria or Egypt or Iran. Ottomans lived in parallel to christians and the cover of their women was part of differentiating them to the infidels, let alone considering the women of infidels as "you know what" and as their own game, thus with the slightest of trouble (say a christian rebellion 1500km away), they would cease the opportunity and enter small villages kill the male population and enslave the female (all that up well into 20th century and even inside "modernised" Turkey). However, the toungturkish movement and its strong will to westernise Turkey meant that the middle-eastern nomadic-like dress code so ingrained in the also nomadic-originated turkish culture was not just abandoned but actually banned, as it was seen as a sign of political opposition. Never the less, turkish women continued to wear at least those tight headscarfs at a rate of 50% which has now increased due to the increased demographics among the traditionalists based mainly in central eastern Turkey, which is something not seen by foreigners who stick to the touristic places or uptown districts. The Iranian-related Kurds however had different traditions and their women were always much less covered - in the later half of the 20th century, the communist PKK party also played some role in that.
However, while Turkey is an example of where western culture was forced-fed on the local muslim populaiton and them now reacting to it giving rise to islamists and while the same can be true to Algeria under different conditions (young turks were internal, in Algeria there was french colonialism), there was actually the opposite on countries like Iran, Syria or Egypt. Take Egypt. It was indeed colonised in one way or another but the local population was quite receptive. In the times of Napoleon's expendition while one part of the society was shocked to be infiltrated by those infidels, another part were shocked to find out how regressive they had remained and how Europeans were in advance despite them living in a geographically more centrally located land (and locally more fertile too). Hence, in Egypt first (but then in Iran and Syria later), there was born also a tedency to restructure the states according to western examples - but unlike Turkey, without any fascist regime. Especially in Egypt, which boasted a large community of European expats, there was created a new upper class of muslim merchants, lawyers, doctors and of course right-wing, left-wing & centrist, politicians who increasingly dressed in western clothing, had university education, preferred educated wifes and educated not only sons but also daughters. By 1950s the then not so crowded with rural people main cities of Egypt, Syria and Iran would show a tedency, at least in superficial appearences, to get westernised: people did not go that often to the mosque, women did not wear scarfs, they started going to university, to have a voice of their own on basic issues like marriage, in Iran (perhaps the most progressive of all) in the early 70s you would see even miniskirts. In subsequent decade when western pop culture esteemed that eventually one after the other all cultures would be westernised. Which was wrong since westerners would only deal with the local upper classes ignoring that it was the big underclass that produced more kids and the big muslim underclassed remained uneducated, poor and regressive.
Now, as westerners (mainly Britain, then US) planned to keep all Middle Eastern countries in relative underdevelopment to exploit them easier, they would actually favour the rise of islamism which was deemed as a regressive element. Where they would invest (like the Gulf Emirates and Saoudi Arabia) they would actually collaborate with the regressive almost sectarian Wahabbis (who would only care to make money with the westerners while keeping the population down with illiteracy and lack of freedom). In all these countries, one way or another, there was created a situation where the huge underclasses were not given access to participating in the global development at equal or at least partially beneficial terms, thus seeing immense wealth flying around them and not touching them, their only response could be a return to the good old traditions and religion - it was a way to say that "I am not your poor illiterate man, I am a muslim and as such I am different than you". The fact that muslim religion considers de-facto a muslim as superior from an infidel played a huge role in the re-embracement of the religion by the youth since the 1980s - but of course under a whole new way (were they would selectively pick parts of the religion which they liked and reject parts which they did not like). The westernised upper class having formed a cozy nomenclature ruling at the expense of the massive underclass, meant that the underclasses would fully reject westernisaiton simply as corruption. That is what happened in Iran. Syria and Egypt followed and it was merely the dictatorships of Assad and Mubarak that kept the appearences (as well as the presence of christian populations, nowadays in Syria only which is ironically the most tolerant Middle Eastern country with muslim majority, all that while harbouring muslim extremists too... quite complicated). In all that antiparathesis of politics and culture, the headscarf became the flagship of traditionalists as it is the main symbol of "the woman keeping herself in the house raising children and going out only briefly to shop and get back". As rural people would come to the city and as they gave birth to more and more children (who survived more and more due to arguably improved health conditions), the population of traditionalists increased exponentially in relation to that of traditionalists, hence the neo-islimisation of these countries with a new different form of islam.
Now, put it in the context: if all that has been on in those countries, then what should one expect from muslims emmigratinng to Europe? There the contrast became even more. While it is understandable that muslims would like to preserve their own culture, in Europe, more than anyone else (Hindus, Sikhs, other non European christians etc.), they tried to differentiate themselves. This is something deeply ingrained in the muslim culture which divides the world to fidels and infidels. Hence, in Europe too, the headscarf became the flagship.
Complain about this comment
However, in Europe, the problem is that it is not the muslims' society but a host society which peacefully accepted them trying to treat them as equally as possible (and often more equally than equally, i.e. muslims had it quite good). And there are no justifications that, for example Algerian muslims suffered by the French and thus they are on the defensive. But how about muslims in Danmark or how about the Turks in Germany (traditionally, they were allies and very friendly with Germans). Whad had the Dutch done to Morrocans for example? In fact what we see is that muslims are acting almost identically in every country they go regardless of the conditions, local culture and acceptance. One has to note the case of Greece where the host nation suffered only 90 years ago a huge genocide in the hands of muslims, yet it accepted huge numbers of muslims in the last 10 years and not even before the end of 5 years of their presence they were already asking for state-paid mosques, "respect of their culture" (while at least a significant part of them show a complete absence of respect ot the local culture and the local sensitivities).
And the main problem of the "muslim integration" (or notable lack of it) is not so much the scarf, burka or whatever garment. The main problem is the aggressiveness of muslims which seems to be part of them whenever they intergrate a different culture as a minority (not speaking of historic minorities in the Balkans which kept till now a low profile in order not to provoke the backlash of the christian majority (at a time when christians in Minor Asia were completely annihilated in the 3 successive genocides...).
I have lived 5 years in Britain and I was shocked to find out the amount of difference that religion can make even among people of relatively similar cultural background (apart religion) like Indians and Pakistanis. And using Indians as an example, one has to note that it is not just the complexes of muslism against the more progressive infidel christians. In India again muslims are presenting exactly the same reaction among the Hindus and are constantly provoking them (eg. tedency to rape Hindu girls - they are infidels' women thus their game, desecrating Hindu holly places whenever possible etc while Hindus, in general a very tolerant culture, will react only as a backlash to that muslim aggressiveness...).
Back in Europe, the burka (but also headscarf) is the extension of the muslim village in the European city. It is a means for these people not just to maintain their own cultural distinctive mark - like Indians wearing their traditional cloths. It is much more than that. It is way of imposing their own culture on Europeans and a very convenient way of exploiting the weak points of european cultures. Europeans do not tend to interfere in the personal life of people especially the sexual one for men and lately for women too. Muslims do it (just like christians did it in the past of course!), they are imposed to do it. However, muslims even more than christians they have a more developed logic: men can do whatever, women must obey. Muslim religion is clear on that: men have to be muslims, if they change religion they are worse than infidels. However, they can have relationships with infidel women as they please and they can marry infidel women without asking them to convert: the kids however they must become muslims. In the rare opposite case where a christian managed to have sufficient social contact with a muslim woman fell in love and marry the family of the woman will force the man to become, at least nominally, a muslim - the man out of love will comply, thus kids will become muslims. I.e. by restricting the sexuality of their women and by letting loose the one of their men (actually implicitly pushing them to have a preference for infidel women) muslims are gaining increasing numbers on top of their anyway increased demographics and they are thus gaining increasing political weight.
This situation would anyway create problems even mong relatively friendly cultural groups let alone between too quite opposing groups. In the case of muslims, things are much more complicated. Because it is not just muslims striving for all that:
The reality is much more sombre. In fact it is the own western elites that push for that force-feeding the western societies with muslim immigrants - and that is nothing close to "needing extra hands" for the very simple raason that muslims in general (and I might be stereotyping here but one must speak the underlying reality) have a cultural aversion to working in what they perceive as lowly jobs... guess how much more, working in what they see as "being in the service of infidels" and would rather prefer to live in unemployment benefits which Europe had initially set for its own local populations. All that is because the western elites are aiming at:
1) continuing exploiting the middle eastern muslim countries striving to keep the locals uneducated or worse, half-educated
2) using muslims as a new political force int he greater region of Caucasus and the Balkans - most sensitive nowdays - as a means of totally destabilising the whole are at the expense of the nations there (Bosnia and Kosovo were just the beggining)
3) using muslim immigrants in europe to bring the clash inside these societies who have for long been in peace and thus perceived by their elites as "too cozy", too "well-brought up" to be easilu exploited anymore. At a time of lowered national or political strife and total absence of religious confontration, the introduction of aggressive muslims bring new derision and new divisions and the elites can thus work more easily.
Divide and conquer. There is no simple solution. It takes two to tango:
1) Powerful western countries will have to realise that muslim countries have to be let free to choose their own path. It is doubtfull that if people are let alone they would ask more mosques and less schools.
2) Muslims must accept we live in the 21st century and if they are to take part in the global village they have to move on them too and accept the others, not just the others accepting them. Otherwise they might as well stay in their villages where they will be happied being uneducated and unable to read blasphemous comics.
Complain about this comment
If they wish to continue to wear the burka then fine, so be it. Let them wear anything they want - as long as it's in their own country. Why should we put up with their infantile, medieval customs. We in the west have bent over backwards to accomodate them with schools, mosques and allowing them almost total religious freedom; we treat them and their religion with more respect than their comrades in the middle east have ever treated us in their homelands. We allow them to live in Europe, work in Europe and make their homes here and yet they try to import their ridiculous, childish and anti-democratic customs into our more advanced civilisation. More and more of them come to live in Europe and why? because they know we will just roll over and let them take over. We pander to their children in our schools, and their adults in our work-places and towns. Enough is enough! Our society is a Christian society. Not the religion but the culture of our society is Western Christianity. We just seem to be inviting them in and allowing them to take over anything they want and helping them as much as we can. One day, in a few decades time, we may wake up to find they control a majority of our votes - and we'll be in the Islamic Republic of Great Britain. You think I'm paranoid? Look at history: in the middle ages a moslem army reached Tours in central France and Hitler wasn't the only one to plan World domination. Why do we treat them so seriously? They are simply a bunch of very stupid and uneducated people who are intent on treating (or mis-treating) their womenfolk like slaves. And we treat them like normal citizens instead of sending them back to their poverty-stricken, backward hovels in some hot, dirty little state where the government, or village council, is run by a bunch of mean, backward and corrupt old men who are poor not because of war or bad-luck but because they are lazy and unintelligent.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS