Burka Rage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

When one particular group's freedom is restricted while other equally valid targets are ignored, that's dishonest. If the target group is ethnically defined, it's textbook racism.

---

You are absolutely correct, leo. My comments were, like yours, intended for places of business, such as banks or stores, not for in public places. I know here in SC you are also required to remove motorcycle helmets and hoods in banks, even sunglasses and hats which conceal the face. I have heard (although I've not experienced it personally) that Halloween-type masks are not permitted in public on adults. But again, those restrictions apply to everyone, not a particular group.

I have a small security question that until you think about it, the question is not a stupid as first take it to be. The passport of the Burka wearer does it show a picture of the face or of the Burka? Does anyone work in passport control anywhere in the world, and please don’t tell me it’s the way they write their signature.

Regards ian 2411

Note I do not work in Airport security or at a border checkpoint...but: I have happended to travel in regions of the world where the wearing of hijabs and burkas are commonplace and everyone's identification of course showed one's face and those garbed in such fashion that one couldnt just pull down the viel easily or had to have ones face obscured from the sight of all non-familial males had to go into a seperate room and have their identity confirmed by a female officer.

The simpest solutions are usually the best ones, den, and if non-moslems didn't make such a fuss about it, there'd be no trouble at all. There is the one drawback that there'd always have to be at least one female officer present, but that's a staffing issue, not a reason to ban the hijab or the burka.

Now, I've seen that the British Humanist Association markets t-shirts bearing their H logo, and the website of American Atheists sells, among other things pendants with their hydrogen atom symbol, worn just like a christian cross or crucifix, or a Star of David. Should those be banned in public places too? Or is that an attack on free thought and individual liberty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Now, I've seen that the British Humanist Association markets t-shirts bearing their H logo, and the website of American Atheists sells, among other things pendants with their hydrogen atom symbol, worn just like a christian cross or crucifix, or a Star of David. Should those be banned in public places too? Or is that an attack on free thought and individual liberty?

---

If those items could be used to hide the identity of the wearer then yes, they would have to be prohibited in some public places.

Ooops - I wandered off the point a bit! I forgot we were talking about the veil and was thinking of the wearing of all kinds of religious symbols.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Ooops - I wandered off the point a bit! I forgot we were talking about the veil and was thinking of the wearing of all kinds of religious symbols.

---

LOL! Despite my being an atheist, I've never once advocated banning the display of any symbols. That would be a violation of free speech laws. Even though I understand the rationale behind it, I'm not even comfortable with the idea of Germany banning display of the swastika. And that has thousands of years of religious symbolism behind it, not just the Nazi perversion of the symbol.

Why not ban ALL clothes that could be used to conseal in anyway shape or form a weapon or bomb then by the same principle?

The spandex industry would make a killing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Why not ban ALL clothes that could be used to conseal in anyway shape or form a weapon or bomb then by the same principle?

---

I think that would be impractical. Unless you wanted to go the "Puppet Master" route of banning all clothing completely. No, I'm only suggesting that certain clothing, which hides the identity of the wearer, be prohibited in certain areas which should maintain high security. Airports and banks come to mind, of course, perhaps sports stadiums. Train stations or subway platforms as well. And of course, private business owners should be permitted to refuse to allow anyone access to their premises if they refuse to show themselves. After all, would you allow a stranger into your home if he/she was hiding their face with a canvas sack? I doubt it!

Just because I can't enter your house with a bag over my head is no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to wear one.

But I agree you have the right to deny me entry

... and I think you can extend that principle as far as it will go.

Now previously I said the french law is no different that other types of dress code laws and in so far as purely legal matters go its not imho until its targeted on a specific type of dressage as is the case with the burka ban.

Which in light of the overall situation to me still apears to be state sponsored bigotry plain and simple.

It makes no sence to make such a law when they allready have plenty of sufficient identity verification that works just fine for women wearing burkas or anything else that would conseal ones identity at first glance at every majior municiple airport in the world where no one has felt the need to ban anything persay conserning this type of thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Just because I can't enter your house with a bag over my head is no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to wear one.

But I agree you have the right to deny me entry

... and I think you can extend that principle as far as it will go.

---

I'm not saying you can't wear a bag over your head. Just not in my house. Or in my bank. Or in my store. Or in airports, or train stations, or other areas where large groups of people are crammed together by necessity.

I'll go anywhere I like with my bag on my head with or without your approval. But if you deny me entrance to your own property, so be it, that's your right. If other people don't like it, they can go elsewhere. After all, isn't that liberty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

I'll go anywhere I like with my bag on my head with or without your approval. But if you deny me entrance to your own property, so be it, that's your right. If other people don't like it, they can go elsewhere. After all, isn't that liberty?

---

Yes it is. And while you are walking around outside you have the right to wear that bag. But I can keep you from my home. I can keep you from entering my store. I can keep you from entering my bank. The same laws which allow the government to control the items one can carry into the airport and onto the planes can also control what people wear in those locations, and elsewhere. The same laws that can prohibit you from entering a bank with a loaded crossbow can prevent you from hiding your identity. Liberty does not endow anyone with the freedom to do whatever they damned well please. That would be anarchy. Limits must be in place to ensure public safety.

You don't need to know who I am if I have a bomb strapped to my waist, and just because you do know who I am won't stop me wearing it to the marketplace.

Whole nations move from day to day and year to year without needing to know what is under a burka, why do Western countries fret about it so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

Whole nations move from day to day and year to year without needing to know what is under a burka, why do Western countries fret about it so?

---

Because the misogynists who require their women to wear the damned things have declared war on Western civilization! Would the British government have allowed uniformed Hitler Youth to wander freely around England in 1940? I doubt it!

French Parliament Votes To Ban The Veil


The French parliament has voted overwhelmingly in favour of a ban on wearing veils over the face, a
There were 336 votes for the bill and just one against at the National Assembly.
Most members of the main opposition group, the Socialist Party, refused to participate in the vote.
President Nicolas Sarkozy has pushed for the law, saying the full veil "hurts the dignity of women, and is not acceptable in French society".
But government advisers warned the proposed ban could be unconstitutional.
Face-covering veils, like the burka and niqab, are worn by many Muslim women out of choice and are not required by Islamic law.
However, some critics claim that many are pressured into wearing the veil.
Although France has the largest Muslim population in Europe - an estimated five million people - the veil ban is thought to only directly affect fewer than 2,000 women.
The new legislation would forbid face-covering Muslim veils in all public places in France, including on the country's streets.
Anyone caught flouting the ban would face a £125 fine or citizenship classes, or both.
Those convicted of forcing someone else to wear a full veil would be hit with a fine of £25,000 and a one-year jail sentence.
If the ban is approved by parliament the law could come into force by September.
A similar law was passed in Belgium in April.

Regards ian 2411

I hear that any woman convicted for wearing an "Islamic" veil will have her €150 fine paid for her by fund set up by a moslem businessman. Hopefully other wealthy moslems such as Al Fayed, or the royal families of the Middle East will help fund it.

According to the BBC, the French Justice Minister has said the vote was a victory for democracy and for French values: "Values of freedom against all the oppressions which try to humiliate individuals; values of equality between men and women, against those who push for inequality and injustice."

It seems to me that the greatest victory here is the removal of freedom of choice. I was not aware that oppression of certain women ranked high among French values. I was not aware that France was a racist country.

However, I applaud the part of the law that will impose a €30,000 on men who force women to wear veils against their will - and I hope that the French authorities will have the balls to fine immans who preach oppression to their congregations and ostracise women who adopt European clothes.

But what abpout mothers and grandmothers who pressurise their (grand)daughters to comply with their old traditions?

Misogyny and terrorism are two unconnected things, even if some misogynists are also terrorists and some terrorists espouse misogyny.

The answer has nothing to do with any of that. The attack on the islamic veil is an attack on islamic society by the West for no better reason than it is different. The veil shows that the wearer has high moral standards and virtues that were last seen in the west some time before the First World War, and the West can't deal with that. Instead it sees murderers and terrorists hiding behind the veil in order to bring down Western society, when only a handful of men are known to have adopted such a disguise.

The sensible way to find out who is under a veil is to get another woman to look.

According to ROD McGUIRK of the Associated Press:

Muslim women would have to remove veils and show their faces to police on request or risk a prison sentence under proposed new laws in Australia's most populous state that have drawn criticism as culturally insensitive.

A vigorous debate that the proposal has triggered reflects the cultural clashes being ignited by the growing influx of Muslim immigrants and the unease that visible symbols of Islam are causing in predominantly white Christian Australia since 1973 when the government relaxed its immigration policy.
Under the law proposed by the government of New South Wales, which includes Sydney, a woman who defies police by refusing to remove her face veil could be sentenced to a year in prison and fined 5,500 Australian dollars ($5,900).
The bill — to be voted on by the state parliament in August — has been condemned by civil libertarians and many Muslims as an overreaction to a traffic offense case involving a Muslim woman driver in a "niqab," or a veil that reveals only the eyes.
The government says the law would require motorists and criminal suspects to remove any head coverings so that police can identify them.
Critics say the bill smacks of anti-Muslim bias given how few women in Australia wear burqas. In a population of 23 million, only about 400,000 Australians are Muslim. Community advocates estimate that fewer than 2,000 women wear face veils, and it is likely that even a smaller percentage drives.
"It does seem to be very heavy handed, and there doesn't seem to be a need," said Australian Council for Civil Liberties spokesman David Bernie. "It shows some cultural insensitivity."
The controversy over the veils is similar to the debate in other Western countries over whether Muslim women should be allowed to wear garments that hide their faces in public. France and Belgium have banned face-covering veils in public. Typical arguments are that there is a need to prevent women from being forced into wearing veils by their families or that public security requires people to be identifiable.
Bernie noted that while a bandit disguised with a veil and sunglasses robbed a Sydney convenience store last year, there were no Australian crime trends involving Muslim women's clothing.
"It is a religious issue here," said Mouna Unnjinal, a mother of five who has been driving in Sydney in a niqab for 18 years and has never been booked for a traffic offense.
"We're going to feel very intimidated and our privacy is being invaded," she added.
Unnjinal said she would not hesitate to show her face to a policewoman. But she fears male police officers might misuse the law to deliberately intimidate Muslim women.
"If I'm pulled over by a policeman, I might say I want to see a female police lady and he says, 'No, I want to see your face,'" Unnjinal said. "Where does that leave me? Do I get penalized 5,000 dollars and sent to jail for 12 months because I wouldn't?"
Sydney's best-selling The Daily Telegraph newspaper declared the proposal "the world's toughest burqa laws." In France, wearing a burqa — the all-covering garment that hides the entire body except eyes and hands — in public is punishable by a 150 euro ($217) fine only.
The New South Wales state Cabinet decided to create the law on July 4 in response to Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione's call for greater police powers. Other states including Victoria and Western Australia are considering similar legislation.
"I don't care whether a person is wearing a motorcycle helmet, a burqa, niqab, face veil or anything else — the police should be allowed to require those people to make their identification clear," State Premier Barry O'Farrell said in a statement.
The laws were motivated by the bungled prosecution of Carnita Matthews, a 47-year-old Muslim mother of seven who was booked by a highway patrolman for a minor traffic violation in Sydney in June last year.
An official complaint was made in Matthews' name against Senior Constable Paul Fogarty, the policeman who gave her the ticket. The complaint accused Fogarty of racism and of attempting to tear off her veil during their roadside encounter.
Unknown to Matthews, the encounter was recorded by a camera inside Fogarty's squad car. The video footage showed her aggressively berating a restrained Fogarty and did not support her claim that he tried to grab her veil before she reluctantly and angrily lifted it to show her face.
Matthews was sentenced in November to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement to police.
But that conviction and sentence were quashed on appeal last month without her serving any time in jail because a judge was not convinced that it was Matthews who signed the false statutory declaration. The woman who signed the document had worn a burqa and a justice of the peace who witnessed the signing had not looked beneath the veil to confirm her identity.
Bernie, the civil libertarian, said the proposed law panders to public anger against Muslims that the case generated on talk radio and in tabloid newspapers, which itself is a symptom of the suspicion with which immigrants are viewed.
Muslims are among the fastest-growing minorities in Australia and mostly live in the two largest cities, Sydney and Melbourne. There are many examples to suggest they are not entirely welcome.
Muslim and non-Muslim youths rioted for days at Sydney's Cronulla beach in 2005, drawing international attention to surging ethnic tensions. Proposals to build Islamic schools are resisted by local protest groups. The convictions of a Sydney gang of Lebanese Muslims who raped several non-Muslim women were likened by a judge to war atrocities and condemned in the media.
In 2006, then-Prime Minister John Howard published a book in which he said Muslims were Australia's first wave of immigrants to fail to assimilate with the mainstream.
Government leaders have also condemned some Muslim clerics who said husbands are entitled to smack disobedient wives, force them to have sex and for suggesting that women who don't hide their faces behind veils invite rape.
"I wouldn't like to go and say this is Muslim bashing," said Ikebal Patel, president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, of the proposed New South Wales laws.
"But I think that the timing of this was really bad for Muslims," he said.

Well, off hand I'd say the police have a right to identify people if there is a problem, as is said whether it is a veil or a helmet or scarf or whatever.

I agree the police should be able to identify people, but this particular law seems to be specifically designed and timed to target one sub section of society as a way of state sanctioned discrimination.

Here we go again:

CORINNE LESTCH AND BILL HUTCHINSON, DAILY NEWS WRITERS Report:
Rye Playland was shut down Tuesday after cops scuffled with Muslims upset that women wearing head scarves were barred from the rides, witnesses said.
Fifteen people, including three women, were charged with disorderly conduct and assault in the chaos, authorities said.
The Westchester County park was packed with Muslims celebrating Eid-ul-Fitr - the holiday marking the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
One woman, Entisai Ali, began arguing with cops over the amusement park's head scarf, or hijab, rule, said Dena Meawad, 18, of Bay Ridge, Brooklyn.
The ban, which is not Muslim specific, was imposed about 3 years ago mostly to prevent hats from falling onto the tracks of roller coasters and other rides, park officials said.
"The cops started getting loud with her and she started getting loud, too. They pushed her on the ground and arrested her," Meawad said.
Her cousin, Kareem Meawad, 17, went to try to protect the woman and was beaten by cops and also arrested, she added. Her brother, Issam Meawad, 20, was pushed to the ground and taken into custody when he tried to help his cousin, she said.
"She just wanted to get on a ride. That was it," Dena Meawad said of the initial confrontation. "It's clear, this all happened because we're Muslim."
John Hodges, chief inspector of Westchester County Public Safety, insisted that police did not use excessive force.
He said up to 100 cops from surrounding departments converged on the park.
Two park rangers were injured in the melee, prompting felony assault charges against two people arrested, officials said.
The ugly incident happened just after 1 p.m. The event was organized by the Muslim American Society of New York, and attracted 3,000 Muslims from Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Westchester County.
Ali's sister, Ayman Alrabah, 24, of Brooklyn said her husband, brother and father were all tackled by cops and put into handcuffs when they tried to help her sister.
Alrabah said she was unaware of the head-scarf rule until she and her sister tried to get on the park's Dragon Coasters.
"We requested a refund and all of a sudden an argument became a riot," Alrabah said. "Cops came. They were hitting my brother, my dad. My husband was on the floor and they were handcuffing him.
She said her 4-year-old son was "traumatized" by seeing his father arrested.
"They treated us like animals, like we were nothing," Alrabah said. "They came with their dogs and sticks. We came to have fun."
'It's clear, this all happened because we're Muslim,' says Dena Meawad. (Norman Y. Lono for NY Daily News)

The park was closed for about two hours because of the fracas. It reopened at about 6 p.m.
Peter Tartaglia, deputy commissioner of Westchester County Parks, said the Muslim American Society of New York was warned in advance of the rule barring head scarves on rides for safety reasons.
"Part of our rules and regulations, which we painstakingly told them over and over again, is that certain rides you cannot wear any sort of headgear," Tartaglia said. "It's a safety issue for us on rides, it could become a projectile."
Many Muslims were given refunds as they left the park disappointed.
"In this heightened state of Islamaphobia, a woman wearing a hajib is an easy target these days," said Zead Ramadan, president of the Council on American-Islamic Relations - New York. "Unfortunately, this turned ugly due to a lot of miscommunication."

Lots of things wrong went on here.

First off, the park had rules regarding the wearing of headgear on certain rides, for safety reasons. So refusing to allow anyone wearing a hat, or a scarf, or a hajib, was a SAFETY issue, not a religious one.

Second, the woman involved made a mistake by verbally attacking cops. Never a good idea to start with.

Third, the cops over-reacted as well, forcing the woman to the ground and assaulting her. As well as assaulting those who came to help her. And yes, there was probably a certain amount of Islamophobia involved in the police reaction. We've all seen videos of cops over-reacting, kicking and beating an apparently submissive suspect. It happens, and should be dealt with within the law.

Screaming "religious discrimination" just because a safety issue happens to interfere with your superstitious* need to wear a scarf is just as inane as getting mad because a restaurant won't let you dine naked. You don't like the rules, don't patronize the business.

* Yes, denuseri, I know you think that's condescending. I don't care. It's no less a superstition than a ball player making the sign of the cross before an at bat, or carrying a lucky penny. It might make the person feel better, but has no bearing on anything that actually happens in their lives. Except in cases like this where clinging to your superstition violates a business' rules.

Just chiming in...Rye Playland often shows up in the news as the site of death and serious injury due to their sketchy machinery and safety policies. I find it suspicious that the park informed the group that those wearing hijab wouldn't be able to ride any of the rides and yet the two parties still managed to come to a paid agreement. In addition I wouldn't call wearing hijab a superstitious act. It's an act of modesty. This incident seems like pretty clear cut religious discrimination to my atheist eyes -- especially as it comes at the end of Ramadan and 9/11 approaches.

No Thorn for your statement to be condescending you would need to hold a superior position, which you do not, and I am fully aware that you do not care, since only your beliefs are valid in your eyes... and as 13 so aptly pointed out its got nothing to do with superstition in the first place. Insulting; yet again, every single person who believes in or adheres to a belief in something that's religious in nature as usual...clearly makes one no better really than the other Islam-a-phoebes and would be discriminators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thirteen

I find it suspicious that the park informed the group that those wearing hijab wouldn't be able to ride any of the rides and yet the two parties still managed to come to a paid agreement. This incident seems like pretty clear cut religious discrimination to my atheist eyes -- especially as it comes at the end of Ramadan and 9/11 approaches.

---

If it was clearly pointed out before hand that no headgear could be worn on the rides, and both parties agreed, I don't see how it can be called discrimination. I've seen plenty of other places which require the removal of headgear, for safety reasons, and for all patrons. Should I feel discriminated against because my bank requires me to remove my hat and sunglasses when I enter the building?

Quote:

---

In addition I wouldn't call wearing hijab a superstitious act. It's an act of modesty.

---

It's an act of modesty which is REQUIRED by a superstition. Whether the superstition is religious or cultural in nature is irrelevant. Kind of like that old fashion statement about not wearing white after Labor Day. It only has relevance if you choose to grant that relevance. Otherwise it's just an annoying fad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

only your beliefs are valid in your eyes...

---

Not true. Any beliefs which are based in reality are valid, though it's hard to categorize them as beliefs if they are reality. Gravity doesn't require belief, does it? It works whether you choose to believe or not. Believing in things which are unreal, or irrational, or based solely on wishful thinking, whether religious or not, would qualify as invalid in my eyes, though.

Quote:

---

Insulting; yet again, every single person who believes in or adheres to a belief in something that's religious in nature as usual...clearly makes one no better really than the other Islam-a-phoebes and would be discriminators.

---

I am not trying to insult anyone. I am merely stating that a belief in something which cannot be proven to exist, which cannot even be tested, and which has no explanatory value in the real world is, by its very nature, a superstition. If you disagree then you only need to show the evidence that the rabbit's foot in your pocket really does change your luck.

Additionally the wearing or not of particular pieces of clothing has more to do with culture than religion.

As for beliefs in things that have no basis in reality...like atheism...which also has no way to prove itself any more than said rabbits foot....that's a topic best left for oh say any one of the other threads on that subject of which there are several don't you think? ...instead of using it to hijack yet another discussion just because it mentions the word religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Additionally the wearing or not of particular pieces of clothing has more to do with culture than religion.

---

Doesn't matter. If the park rules forbid it, you either follow the rules or don't patronize the park.

Quote:

---

As for beliefs in things that have no basis in reality...like atheism...which also has no way to prove itself any more than said rabbits foot....that's a topic best left for oh say any one of the other threads on that subject of which there are several don't you think? ...instead of using it to hijack yet another discussion just because it mentions the word religion.

---

Nice way to throw in your two cents worth and close the door at the same time. But yeah, I agree, this isn't the place. But then, I wasn't the one who hijacked the thread in the first place, was I?

My point was that I doubted the clarity of the communication. Yet even if the rule was clearly communicated, the rule itself still seems to be discriminatory. I don't know of any other major amusement park that forbids hijab. It seems doubly unacceptable as this park is owned and funded by Westchester County. What I was trying to suggest with the mention of death at the park is that Rye Playland doesn't take safety policies seriously - except apparently in the case of women wearing hijab. Westchester County is in Long Island, many people in Long Island go to work in NYC. Many people in Long Island are also white, and patriotic Christians -- you know, proper Americans. Numerous women wearing hijab, in their all American amusement parks? Right before 9/11? There are a lot people, a lot of cops in Long Island who would feel frightened/threatened/angered by such an idea.

Certainly I personally agree that organized religion is silly but this "riot" still seems to me an extremely poorly handled clash of culture and religion. The whole affair and all of the debate it has sparked has so far only served to once again highlight the depth of Islamic fear and discrimination in this country. Instead of saying kudos to the police for beating and arresting them crazy Muslims before they did something terrible like wearing a scarf on an old rickety 1950s roller coaster there are other more positive and less violent ways to approach this situation. I sincerely hope that Westchester County takes this opportunity to bring the communities together instead of pushing them further apart.

thirteen,

I understand what you're saying, and I agree that the whole incident was badly mishandled by all parties involved. And believe me, I have no sympathy for cops feeling "frightened/threatened/angered" by people because of their religious/cultural beliefs. But I also have no sympathy for those who cling to such irrational beliefs. "When in Rome" and all that. What I find ironic is that in some of the homelands of these Islamic people a woman without the hijab, whether Muslim or not, would be arrested and thrown into prison, and these same people who complain of discrimination would have no problem with such acts. The idea that "You must respect my idiotic beliefs, but don't expect me to respect your idiotic beliefs" just doesn't hold any water for me. What will bring communities together is to toss aside the old customs, for both sides, and establish new customs that all can live with.

And I still say that, based upon what I read in the article, the Muslim group was informed beforehand that the hajibs would not be permitted. They could have declined to spend their money at the park if such rules offended them. By going into the park anyway and then making a scene about it they were instigating the disruption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

What I find ironic is that in some of the homelands of these Islamic people a woman without the hijab, whether Muslim or not, would be arrested and thrown into prison, and these same people who complain of discrimination would have no problem with such acts.

---

For many "Islamic" people (Muslims), homeland is America. Where their families past is as close to them as a white American with an Irish background. They may celebrate a little more on St. Patty's, but that doesn't make them representatives of Ireland or in anyway linked to the current state of that country. As for Muslims who have no problem with arresting women who are hijab-less, has there been a major push to enact a mandatory hijab law by any Muslims here? Why do you think that just because it happens in their parent's land, or even in the country they lived in the past, that they condone it?

I have no idea what happened in that park, and I have faith in local law officials in their duty to serve and protect. Personally, I don't like burqa's in North America, but a woman wearing one is as much part of America then the girl wearing a string bikini on a beach that same day.

Most attire worn by men and women around the world has had a scientific reason attached to it. We wear Jeans because its the most convenient fabric, though it started off as a tough cloth for the miners. Burqa started off as means to protect the eyes and face of women as they traveled through the sandy deserts. Burqa, started off in the second century as a means to show class and status as well, since only those with riches could afford to cover their women with so much cloth. That too, only the urban women were veiled. Several rulers from Iran and Egypt have tried to get rid of it, without much success. Men, with their low life confidence, insecurity and maturity decided to keep the tradition on. Personally, I feel the Burqa represents oppression of one's freedom of speech, freedom of movement and every other. It, to me, is demeaning for any women and none should be forced to go through it. One can argue that wearing is a Burqa is religious and to impose a ban on the Burqa is imposing the freedom of practicing religion. But that comment is flawed. Consider this scenario: A new religion is born that professes wearing no clothes ever. Would that be acceptable to the society as a whole? Would you stand next to a naked man shopping for tomatoes in a super market? I'm sure I would be uncomfortable. As uncomfortable as it makes me standing next to a women wearing a Burqa. It represents oppression, slavery without a choice, and is nothing short of humiliation to women all over the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AeroFly

Most attire worn by men and women around the world has had a scientific reason attached to it.

---

Not necessarily scientific, but at least a rational reason. There have been many such rational reasons for many different practices which, over the centuries, have become entrenched in dogma. The real reasons for doing those things have been forgotten, and they are done only because it's the way they've always been done. Even though there is now no rational reason for doing so.

Quote:

---

We wear Jeans because its the most convenient fabric, though it started off as a tough cloth for the miners.

---

The reasons for wearing jeans are almost as numerous as the different brands, but none of them are considered to be requirements (except by those enslaved to the fashion dictates of designers). And they are certainly not FORCED upon half of the population by the other half of the population.

Quote:

---

Several rulers from Iran and Egypt have tried to get rid of it, without much success.

---

That's because the clerics have made it an integral part of the religion, with disobedience resulting in death. Remove the stranglehold of religion and the problem disappears. Not as simple as it sounds, I know.

It's not just the clerics or any one group propagating the wearing of traditional clothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

It's not just the clerics or any one group propagating the wearing of traditional clothing.

---

I didn't mean to imply that it was. It's both a cultural and a religious dogma. It's a tossup as to whether the religious dogma is descended from the cultural mores or vice versa, but when the only choice is to submit to the dogma or die, you'll find few who will fight it.

Even if they (religion and culture) sometimes seem as if they are hopelessly tangled together, at least in so far as certain traditional practices are concerned...doesn't it make more sense to simply have no laws concerning what someone wears so long as it applies universally or regionally on some kind of decency scale and leave all the rest up to personal preference?...as opposed to making laws specifically designed to isolate and increase cultural tensions?

Removing religion isn't a feasible solution to this cultural issue imho.

To my mind, the French law is discriminatory on racist, religious and gender grounds and is deliberately provocative. It attacks the weakest members of the section of society it wishes to marginalise, knowing that the radical leaders (male) will respond to that provocation, while the moderates will have no option but to submit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

doesn't it make more sense to simply have no laws concerning what someone wears so long as it applies universally or regionally on some kind of decency scale and leave all the rest up to personal preference?...as opposed to making laws specifically designed to isolate and increase cultural tensions?

---

And who's concept of "decency" should we use? The group that claims it's indecent for a woman to show any skin below the neck? Or the group that thinks it's okay for anyone to walk around naked if they so choose? WHO gets to define what's "decent"? And while I agree that the French law is aimed at Muslim women in particular, isn't it true that it applies to ALL people in France?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Removing religion isn't a feasible solution to this cultural issue imho.

---

Removing religion may not be feasible, but eliminating the power of religion to rule those who are not subscribed to that religion is not only feasible but mandatory. We have to put religion back in the box where it belongs. Keep it in the churches, and in your home if you wish. It does not belong in public or government.