NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems there are more and more cases of restrictions or banning of the dress Muslim women can have, most of these cases seem to come from Europe. So what I would like to know is if you support such actions in the name of security or what have you, or you feel it is nothing more than not allowing religious freedom or tolerance.

It seems there are more and more cases of restrictions or banning of the dress Muslim women can have, most of these cases seem to come from Europe. So what I would like to know is if you support such actions in the name of security or what have you, or you feel it is nothing more than not allowing religious freedom or tolerance.

Well, I'd ban the niqab, but not the burka or anything else, if the women wanted to wear it.

They shouldn't be banned. Its weird theres so much fuss about them but I can happily walk the streets in a balaclava. Obviously I shouldn't be able to be let pass security with it on just like the Niqab or Burka, they should have female member of staff to check who they are.

I would say things such as the Niqab or Burkha which in european climate and infrastructure have literally no real purpose except to hinder the woman in her daily activities or make them unrecognizable for anyone should be restricted. If they want to wear the Burkha at home fine, but during work or arguably on the open street should be questioned.

The veil or hair coverrings sure why not, as long as they leave enough of the woman's face exposed so one could recognise her from more then just her eyes or voice.
Lets say simply the police have to pull over a woman who is in a Burkha, or stop her on the street for a routine check. How are they going to be able to identify her, if she starkly refuses to take off the Burkha and is not recognisable as the person on the ID with the burkha on? I would say if they are immigrants to a foreign nation they should respect the code and ethics of their host nation. Same if I moved to Saudi Arabia or another nation I would adjust myself to their customs out of respect, I would expect the same courtesy back.

They shouldn't be banned. Its weird theres so much fuss about them but I can happily walk the streets in a balaclava. Obviously I shouldn't be able to be let pass security with it on just like the Niqab or Burka, they should have female member of staff to check who they are.

They should have a female staff member? And why exactly? They are in a host nation, shouldn't they out of respect acknowledge your customs of sexual ecquality? Or if not that, then not be in that country in the first place if they so disagree with the simple rules of the nation in which they wish to preside?

I say wear what you want to wear but only if it's a freely made choice. If you wear a burqua because some scumbag in your neighborhood is likely to throw acid in your face otherwise, then someone needs to round up some of the local fundies and take a hammer to their tiny little balls.

The sexist and abusive way that Islam treats women is not something I support. However, I feel that it is the right of every citizen to express their religious beleifs as they wish, so long as they harm no one else, and so I oppose these laws, with a feeling of great personal discuss.

Pointless, really.

Only ban it in places where it becomes a health and safety hazard or affects their performance at their job.

I say wear what you want to wear but only if it's a freely made choice. If you wear a burqua because some scumbag in your neighborhood is likely to throw acid in your face otherwise, then someone needs to round up some of the local fundies and take a hammer to their tiny little balls.

While I disagree with the violent method of dealing with such fiends, I must otherwise fully agree with my drunken collegue. Wear whatever the hell you want, if it's your choice to do so.

Muslim women should be able to dress how they please. To pass laws deciding what they can and can't wear is discriminatory and without justification.

I think all women should be banned from wearing clothes.

Why on earth should you ban them from wearing the head scarf or anything else, it's blatant Islamophobia push on by the non existent 'terrorist threat'.

While I disagree with the violent method of dealing with such fiends, I must otherwise fully agree with my drunken collegue. Wear whatever the hell you want, if it's your choice to do so.

Indeed. No point in bemoaning the way the Saudis go on if we start preventing others from doing (or not doing) whatever suits them.

I think all women should be banned from wearing clothes.


Think about that again....its a bit 'catch all' there isn't it?

I think all women should be banned from wearing clothes.

Even the ugly ones!? :eek:


j/k

It depends on what type of veil they're wearing. The niqab or the burqa could be a problem as they obstruct identification. There is no justification, or even a reason to ban the headscarf though.

I think all women should be banned from wearing clothes.

Even your mother?:eek:

What if your employer doesn't want you to wear your religious attire? They can dictate what to wear since you're representing the company (or whatever). If they expect you not to show up in jeans and sweater but in suit and tie (or blouse and dress...), don't you think the same applies to religious paraphernalia?

There's been a case here where a Muslim teacher was not allowed to wear her scarf because as a teacher and state employee, she has to remain neutral on religious issues because she represents the state.

I’d like to hear someone with more authority than Jack Straw or The Daily Mail talk about this, but as far as I am aware, the wearing of the niqāb isn’t a strict tenant of Islam, merely a cultural trend. (Perhaps you’ know better, Soviestan, or could point me in the right direction of a source?)

If indeed that’s the case, then in certain situations I’d accept the niqāb wasn’t appropriate. However, I can’t think of many situations in which that’d happen, and legislation to such effect seems a tad draconian.

This whole discussion, in the public domain rather than here on NS:G, seems to be polarised between, “it’s a tool of oppression and a security hazard” and, “every single Muslim woman must wear the niqāb”. I suspect there is a compromise somewhere...

I think all women should be banned from wearing clothes.

Think about that again....its a bit 'catch all' there isn't it?

I think everyone, men, women, children of all ages, should not wear clothes. This would greatly reduce the chance for anyone to sneak a waist-coat made of dynamite near innocent people. Of course, there are a few practical considerations, for instance, in the winter most people would have to stay indoors. I'm sure something could be worked out, though.

meh, people should be allowed what to wear when they want to wear it. but police or airport security people should be allowed to force them to uncover their face. also when she's on a public office (s)he shouldn't be allowed to wear religious symbols.
and i think that banning a dress won't do much against the opression of women in the muslim world.

I don't care how people dress, but on a personal level because of my hearing disability I hate the niqab and the burkha, I have trouble understanding women who wear the niqab (haven't met one who wears the burkha). I rely on partially reading lips. I hate not being able to, and I hate making people repeat themselves, I find it disrupts the flow of the conversation. Hence, I hate any face veils and such. I have zero problem with the hijab, as it doesn't cover the face, so I can still understand the person and such.

I think everyone, men, women, children of all ages, should not wear clothes. This would greatly reduce the chance for anyone to sneak a waist-coat made of dynamite near innocent people. Of course, there are a few practical considerations, for instance, in the winter most people would have to stay indoors. I'm sure something could be worked out, though.

I'd say exposure and disease would become a major concern.

Even your mother?:eek:

What is known as my mother is actually a non-gendered alien-human hybrid, so "she" is exempt. :p

What is known as my mother is actually a non-gendered alien-human hybrid, so "she" is exempt. :p

Doesn't that make you one to? If so what pleasure would you derive from seeing naked female eathlings?

I firmly believe in religous tolerance so I would be against the banning of any expression of religous identity. (Well... with a few exceptions)

I think everyone, men, women, children of all ages, should not wear clothes. This would greatly reduce the chance for anyone to sneak a waist-coat made of dynamite near innocent people. Of course, there are a few practical considerations, for instance, in the winter most people would have to stay indoors. I'm sure something could be worked out, though.

I suspect there is a compromise somewhere...


But in all seriousness, this is bullshit. I agree with Kinda Sensible People and Drunk Commies deleted: I abhor the idea that women would be pressured to wear certain garments, but I would defend their right to wear them if they so choose.

It shouldn't matter to a third-party whether the niqab is a matter of culture or religion. It's nobody else's freaking business (if a woman freely chooses to wear it). And you can't go around banning it in the false guise of setting women free from their own culture.

meh, people should be allowed what to wear when they want to wear it. but police or airport security people should be allowed to force them to uncover their face. also when she's on a public office (s)he shouldn't be allowed to wear religious symbols.and i think that banning a dress won't do much against the opression of women in the muslim world.

So no Xian crosses or Yamulkes?

I think that the tent get-up should be banned. They ban public nudity for purely cultural reasons so i don't see what makes this kind of clothing so special. It seems a little hypocritical that so many people support one form of clothing restriction in the form of public nudity laws, but find the idea of another clothing restriction in the form of the banning of wearing tents completely horrifying.

This thread is useless without pics. :D

Niqab
http://www.islamfortoday.com/niqab02.jpg

Hijab

http://www.inminds.co.uk/hijab-war-on-freedom-5120.jpg

Burqa

http://www.afghan-web.com/shop/nproducts/images/burqa.jpg

Chunni/Dupatta used as a head cover. This is Benazir Bhutto - former PM of Pakistan.

http://www.depauw.edu/photos/PhotoDB_Repository/2004/9/custom/benazir-bhutto-184x216.jpg

Finally - the Burqini

http://www.neatorama.com/images/2005-12/burqini.jpg

It was an itsy bitsy teeny weeny yellow polka dot burqini… :D

Clothing should not be banned, except in cases where security is an issue, but the sooner humanity gives up religion and its unreasonable restrictions on human behavior, the better off the species will be.

Clothing should not be banned, except in cases where security is an issue, but the sooner humanity gives up religion and its unreasonable restrictions on human behavior, the better off the species will be.

I agree, but I'm not holding my breath.

Men and women, within a few boundaries for public safety, should be legally allowed to dress as they please. No woman should be forced or pressured to wear the hijab, niqab, or burqua. However, if she freely chooses to do so, then there should be no legal barrier to that.

Of course, in the case of clothing that does bar identification by the proper authorities, concessions will have to be made. A woman who wears niqab or burqua may have to reveal her face to an officer of the law, for instance. If it is not an emergency situation, then all reasonable attempt to provide her with a female officer for this purpose should be made, just as many searches on female citizens generally must be carried out by a female officer. However, if a quick identification is a necessity, she may have to remove it, at least briefly, for the purposes of identification.

In other words, as with any citizen, all reasonable effort should be made to ensure her comfort and to allow her to dress as she pleases. But there are a few situations that might require otherwise.

I don't care how people dress, but on a personal level because of my hearing disability I hate the niqab and the burkha, I have trouble understanding women who wear the niqab (haven't met one who wears the burkha). I rely on partially reading lips. I hate not being able to, and I hate making people repeat themselves, I find it disrupts the flow of the conversation. Hence, I hate any face veils and such. I have zero problem with the hijab, as it doesn't cover the face, so I can still understand the person and such.

I would say this - concessions between people of different cultures and ideas, even within one larger culture, should really go both ways. You shouldn't feel uncomfortable asking a woman in a niqab who you need to converse with if she would be willing to speak to you face to face, as - in your case - it does represent a bar to communication. If she feels very uncomfortable doing so, she can certainly refuse, but she also might feel that, in this particular circumstance, it is not unreasonable for her to do so.

Clothing should not be banned, except in cases where security is an issue, but the sooner humanity gives up religion and its unreasonable restrictions on human behavior, the better off the species will be.

The idea of modesty is really more culturally related than religiously, although some religions do require it. I've met many men and women who give little thought to religion, but still have deeply ingrained ideas of modesty. In fact, most of the people I know would be highly uncomfortable with being naked or even in their undergarments in front of a member of the opposite sex. Some are very uncomfortable with bathing suits. Some don't like shorts or skirts, etc.

The sexist and abusive way that Islam treats women is not something I support. However, I feel that it is the right of every citizen to express their religious beleifs as they wish, so long as they harm no one else, and so I oppose these laws, with a feeling of great personal discuss.

It's a good thing that's not a rash generalization or something.

Conflicts with the middle east are never going to stop until both sides learn to recognize and respect the other's right to have it's own culture.
Banning a certain type of dress is not going to solve anything unless the goal is to prove you know nothing of the world beyond your own borders.

I think all women should be banned from wearing clothes.

QFT :cool:

Conflicts with the middle east are never going to stop until both sides learn to recognize and respect the other's right to have it's own culture.
Banning a certain type of dress is not going to solve anything unless the goal is to prove you know nothing of the world beyond your own borders.
Laws against islamic dress in the west bear no relation to conflicts in the middle east. They're an internal matter in western countries regarding muslim minorities. I don't see how this is of any concern to the middle east, particularly considering the way they oppress non-muslims in far worse ways than we treat muslims. Particularly when you consider that a lot of middle eastern countries are still run by relatively secular dictators.

It seems there are more and more cases of restrictions or banning of the dress Muslim women can have, most of these cases seem to come from Europe. So what I would like to know is if you support such actions in the name of security or what have you, or you feel it is nothing more than not allowing religious freedom or tolerance.

Are you talking about things like the hijab or more like the burkha?

But more important is this question--why should intolerant expressions be tolerated simply because they're religious in nature? Why does any religious belief get a free pass from criticism? The vast majority of current Islamic teaching is misogynist, despite the fact that women held positions of great authority in the early days of Islam. Christianity is the same way, though to a lesser extreme--one of the more liberal churches recently faced a schism over the appointment of a woman as a bishop, for example.

Why does the fact that those beliefs are based on thousands-year-old texts remove them from the sort of criticism that we would level against any secular groups who would follow the same traditions?

I don’t support banning of any sort of clothing. On the other hand, I reserve the right to think people dressed head to toe in black in the middle of summer are weird.
QFT, before you even fucking posted man.

I don't support banning of any sort of clothing. On the other hand, I reserve the right to think people dressed head to toe in black in the middle of summer are weird.

I think all women should be banned from wearing clothes.

WHOA THERE! Are you insane?

You really want people like Bea Arthur running around NAKED?!? http://www.memphisracingscene.com/vb/images/smilies/mrs_puke.gif



/me shudders

WHOA THERE! Are you insane?

You really want people like Bea Arthur running around NAKED?!? http://www.memphisracingscene.com/vb/images/smilies/mrs_puke.gif



/me shudders

I imagine we'd all work a little harder to stay in shape--that, or it wouldn't matter anymore.

It was an itsy bitsy teeny weeny yellow polka dot burqini… :D

YAY! :D

Are you talking about things like the hijab or more like the burkha?

If it is the woman choosing to wear it, does it matter?

But more important is this question--why should intolerant expressions be tolerated simply because they're religious in nature?

If I choose to wear a bra, is that an "intolerant expression" because people expect me to wear one? Men don't have to wear one.

True intolerance should never be tolerated. If a woman is being pressured or forced to dress in a certain manner, even though she does not want to, that cannot be tolerated. If, on the other hand, she chooses to, that is her business.

I know a woman who has chosen to wear hijab. She has not always worn it, and most of the women in her family, though Muslim, do not do so. The men in her family did not pressure her to, nor did her boyfriend. She has determined, for herself, that it is appropriate for her to wear it. Is that intolerant?

If it is the woman choosing to wear it, does it matter? It does if it's a burkha, because there's a potential security issue involved, and so the state can assert a right to be able to identify people within their borders.



If I choose to wear a bra, is that an "intolerant expression" because people expect me to wear one? Men don't have to wear one.

True intolerance should never be tolerated. If a woman is being pressured or forced to dress in a certain manner, even though she does not want to, that cannot be tolerated. If, on the other hand, she chooses to, that is her business.

I know a woman who has chosen to wear hijab. She has not always worn it, and most of the women in her family, though Muslim, do not do so. The men in her family did not pressure her to, nor did her boyfriend. She has determined, for herself, that it is appropriate for her to wear it. Is that intolerant?
I'm not saying that the wearing of any ceremonial garb is necessarily intolerant--just that in too many cases, it is. Your friend is likely the minority, not in her circle or neighborhood perhaps, but worldwide, almost certainly. The burkha in particular is clothing of oppression, and I have to wonder how many women who wear it are even in a position to really make an informed choice whether or not they wish to.

we would have to determine what the "choosing " implies. "wear this or get out of my house" is not really a choice, is it?

we would have to determine what the "choosing " implies. "wear this or get out of my house" is not really a choice, is it?

More like "wear this or don't go out of the house"....

I live in Australia. A western nation proud of its values of equality and mateship. However, the numbers of times the police or other government officials have had trouble with Muslim women refusing to remove headscarves and other items of apparel for routine checks or otherwise, is steadily growing due to increased immigration.
You are living in Australia. You abide by Australian rules. Due to freedom of speech you can wear what you want, but if in some situation an official of the government of the country you live in asks you to remove an item of apparel for official reasons, under no circumstances do you refrain, citing "cultural reasons." This applies to everyone in any cirumstance. I take off my trenchcoat if an officer asks me too, why can't others do the same?

If you select womens garb, regardless of its motivation (or yours), it opens up justification for forcing everyone to conform. It truly is the "slippery slope". As long as nobody has to try and lip read them, let them be.

It seems there are more and more cases of restrictions or banning of the dress Muslim women can have, most of these cases seem to come from Europe. So what I would like to know is if you support such actions in the name of security or what have you, or you feel it is nothing more than not allowing religious freedom or tolerance.I think we can all agree that what Muslim women really need is MORE laws controlling what they do with their bodies.
[/sarcasm]

It seems there are more and more cases of restrictions or banning of the dress Muslim women can have, most of these cases seem to come from Europe.

Italian law rules that NO ONE can walk on the street hiding his/her face. The only exception is for the days of the Carnival (of course).

No one. No christian, no muslim, no whatever. No man, no woman. This isn't a discrimination - it's law for everyone on italian territory.

It seems there are more and more cases of restrictions or banning of the dress Muslim women can have, most of these cases seem to come from Europe. So what I would like to know is if you support such actions in the name of security or what have you, or you feel it is nothing more than not allowing religious freedom or tolerance.

Im think the so called security measures are just a way for the europeans to make the muslim immigrants assimilate into the european culture. I support the Hijab, niqab and the burkha.

Just ban all clothes and be done with it.

I think for the most part we can agree that everyone should be allowed to wear what they want, but shouldn't be pressured or forced into doing so. I believe (and think most people here can agree) that in the case of say, a ski mask, a burqha, or whatever it is, then the authorities have every right to ask you to remove it (and said individual has an obligation to comply) whether or not that cop, security guard, etc is a male or female. Granted, if there's a female present or nearby, then have them handle it, but if not, then guess what? You're in a western country where equality is a fundamental aspect of our way of life, if you don't like it, you don't have to live here.

As for banning all clothes, taking one look around campus has pretty muched assured me that as awesome as that would be in regards to certain individuals, I think I might be having waking nightmares/gouging out my own eyes after about five minutes lol.

I just have a fundamental problem with Muslim women (or any woman, for that matter - actually, while we're at it, any PERSON) who are avert to anything dealing with a member of the opposite sex they don't know, such as an officer or security guard, based purely upon reasons that I think to be invalid.

Not only is it incredibly rude to go to someone else's country and say half their population has to provide a member of the other half of the population for each and every Muslm woman in every place where they may go, but I find it just incredibly annoying and saddening that religion has influenced their lives to such an extent - as well as being quite indignant when a woman generally has an aversion to men for no reason/relgious reason. It's insurmountably silly to me.

Of course, I don't really like organized religion. I don't like being told to pray, I don't like being told I'm sinful, I don't like being told to ask for forgiveness for something I don't need to ask forgiveness for to someone I don't believe exists, and I don't like the way it subdues women in society so forcefully.

I think for the most part we can agree that everyone should be allowed to wear what they want, but shouldn't be pressured or forced into doing so. I believe (and think most people here can agree) that in the case of say, a ski mask, a burqha, or whatever it is, then the authorities have every right to ask you to remove it (and said individual has an obligation to comply) whether or not that cop, security guard, etc is a male or female. Granted, if there's a female present or nearby, then have them handle it, but if not, then guess what? You're in a western country where equality is a fundamental aspect of our way of life, if you don't like it, you don't have to live here.

As for banning all clothes, taking one look around campus has pretty muched assured me that as awesome as that would be in regards to certain individuals, I think I might be having waking nightmares/gouging out my own eyes after about five minutes lol.

This is an intelligent position. Totally seconded.

I don't think it's right to impose laws restricting clothing of a religious nature.

Having said that, there are times when exceptions must be made. For example: A couple of years ago a woman went in to get her driver's license, and refused to uncover her face for the photo. To me, this is a time when an exception must be made, because a picture of a veiled face is useless. Driving is a priviledge, and to have it you have to submit to certain conditions (like getting a horrible picture taken or dealing with painfully long lines.)

I think we can all agree that what Muslim women really need is MORE laws controlling what they do with their bodies.
[/sarcasm]

Remember, a law is not oppresive as long as it's not Islamic.[/sarcasm]

It does if it's a burkha, because there's a potential security issue involved, and so the state can assert a right to be able to identify people within their borders.

Should we ban costumes as well, then? Mascots at sports games? Should it be illegal for me to dress up in a bulky costume with a mask and walk around if I so choose? Or should that security issue be solved when the government actually has a present need to identify people - making anyone who cannot be readily identified allow identification?

I'm not saying that the wearing of any ceremonial garb is necessarily intolerant--just that in too many cases, it is.

"Ceremonial garb"? We're talking about articles of clothing. The hijab, niqab, or even the burqua is as ceremonial as my jeans are.

And an article of clothing cannot be, in and of itself, intolerant. It is simply an article of clothing. Can it be used in an intolerant and oppressive manner? Yes. But it is that which we must fight, not the article of clothing itself.

Your friend is likely the minority, not in her circle or neighborhood perhaps, but worldwide, almost certainly. The burkha in particular is clothing of oppression, and I have to wonder how many women who wear it are even in a position to really make an informed choice whether or not they wish to.

None of that is relevant if they had made such a choice.

we would have to determine what the "choosing " implies. "wear this or get out of my house" is not really a choice, is it?

That depends. Is the woman in question a minor? Does she actually own the house herself? If not, she could certainly choose not to associate with the person who would try and force this on her. In fact, she probably should.

Meanwhile, I made it clear that I against any woman being forced or pressured into dressing a certain way.


Italian law rules that NO ONE can walk on the street hiding his/her face. The only exception is for the days of the Carnival (of course).

No one. No christian, no muslim, no whatever. No man, no woman. This isn't a discrimination - it's law for everyone on italian territory.

That's nice. What purpose does such a law hold other than government control over the people? Would it be applied to Michael Jackson and his children? What about a burn victim who does not like to be looked at?

I just have a fundamental problem with Muslim women (or any woman, for that matter - actually, while we're at it, any PERSON) who are avert to anything dealing with a member of the opposite sex they don't know, such as an officer or security guard, based purely upon reasons that I think to be invalid.

I suppose we shouldn't mandate that strip searches be carried out by members of the same sex, either?

Pretty much everyone has an aversion to dealing with strangers in general - and generally a stronger aversion to strangers of the opposite sex - in certain ways. Most women would not wish to, for instance, remove their shirts in front of a male officer, even if he had reason to search her. As a general rule, if an intimate search is necessary, a female officer will carry it out. Why should this be any different?

I don't think it's right to impose laws restricting clothing of a religious nature.

Having said that, there are times when exceptions must be made. For example: A couple of years ago a woman went in to get her driver's license, and refused to uncover her face for the photo. To me, this is a time when an exception must be made, because a picture of a veiled face is useless. Driving is a priviledge, and to have it you have to submit to certain conditions (like getting a horrible picture taken or dealing with painfully long lines.)

Indeed. But, unless there were no female clerks working that day, they certainly could have provided her with a female clerk to take said picture.

"Ceremonial garb"? We're talking about articles of clothing. The hijab, niqab, or even the burqua is as ceremonial as my jeans are. You're being a little facetious here. It's as ceremonial as a prayer shawl or a yarmulke is. It's an expression of religious faith as much as a piece of clothing.

Indeed. But, unless there were no female clerks working that day, they certainly could have provided her with a female clerk to take said picture.
None of which would matter if she was pulled over while driving--a female cop might not be available, and furthermore, why should that level of deference be provided in the first place? Because it's a religious custom? That's not good enough for me--there has to be some other, deeper rationale for a secular society to defer.

You're being a little facetious here. It's as ceremonial as a prayer shawl or a yarmulke is. It's an expression of religious faith as much as a piece of clothing.

No, it isn't. It is a matter of modesty, which is defined very differently by different people. Islam (much like Christianity) dictates that adherents dress modestly, but it does not define the term. When Mennonites tie back their hair under a scarf and wear hand-made, plain clothing, that is not a religious expression. Instead, it is an expression of what they find to be modest.

Personally, I wear what I find to be modest, as do most people. Did you know that head coverings for women are actually common in some Christian denominations?

None of which would matter if she was pulled over while driving--a female cop might not be available, and furthermore, why should that level of deference be provided in the first place? Because it's a religious custom? That's not good enough for me--there has to be some other, deeper rationale for a secular society to defer.

It is provided for the same reason that strip searches on women must be carried out by women. It is provided for the same reason that many women prefer female OB/GYNs and men often prefer male doctors. During times when a woman must partially undress, she is generally going to feel more comfortable doing so in front of a woman - and the same goes for men.

And you are right, if she is pulled over, a female officer might not be available, so she would have to reveal her face to a male officer, despite the fact that it would be uncomfortable for her - just as I might have to submit to a search or examination by a male officer or doctor if that were necessary.

No, it isn't. It is a matter of modesty, which is defined very differently by different people. Islam (much like Christianity) dictates that adherents dress modestly, but it does not define the term. When Mennonites tie back their hair under a scarf and wear hand-made, plain clothing, that is not a religious expression. Instead, it is an expression of what they find to be modest.

Personally, I wear what I find to be modest, as do most people. Did you know that head coverings for women are actually common in some Christian denominations? Yes, I know that of certain Christian denominations. It's also irrelevant. We're not talking about just a head covering when we're talking about a burkha--we're talking about a kind of clothing that makes whoever wears it anonymous, and to compare it to jeans like you did above is just plain silly. It's clothing worn for religious reasons--that modesty you're describing is based in religious belief, nothing more. It's an excuse.

I really don't think religious beliefs should entitle one to outlandish priveliges. Anyone can make up a religion.
People in public professions, like teachers and civil servants, should not dress like they're hiding. And for public comfort, if not safety, it's not unreasonable that people on the streets dress recognizable and don't hide their faces.

I would ban the niqab from things like checkpoints and airports, but allow rooms for the woman to put on a niqab after they had been searched.

The sexist and abusive way that Islam treats women is not something I support. However, I feel that it is the right of every citizen to express their religious beleifs as they wish, so long as they harm no one else, and so I oppose these laws, with a feeling of great personal discuss.

Islam does not treat women sexiest or abusive in the slightest.

Islam does not treat women sexiest or abusive in the slightest.

Never did the prophet suggest that in his works. Also absent is the Jihad and the niqab, etc.

But it is now in some people's Islam. Why?

Same reason a priest thought a transsexual would be excused from office by Jesus due to [now] her operation.

Jesus never excluded and neither did Mohammed.

Wearing of masks in public should be illegal.

Apart from that people should be free to do what they want, be it paint themselves blue and run around naked, or cover themselves is sackcloth and ashes. (Apart from the face).

Wearing of masks in public should be illegal.

Apart from that people should be free to do what they want, be it paint themselves blue and run around naked, or cover themselves is sackcloth and ashes. (Apart from the face).

QFT. :p

*Waits for LG to actually do so*

I’d like to hear someone with more authority than Jack Straw or The Daily Mail talk about this, but as far as I am aware, the wearing of the niqāb isn’t a strict tenant of Islam, merely a cultural trend. (Perhaps you’ know better, Soviestan, or could point me in the right direction of a source?)
Niqab or burka is not mandatory in Islam, though the Hijab is which is covering everything but hands and face.

If indeed that’s the case, then in certain situations I’d accept the niqāb wasn’t appropriate. However, I can’t think of many situations in which that’d happen, and legislation to such effect seems a tad draconian.

This whole discussion, in the public domain rather than here on NS:G, seems to be polarised between, “it’s a tool of oppression and a security hazard” and, “every single Muslim woman must wear the niqāb”. I suspect there is a compromise somewhere...

However, just because it is not mandatory for the religion itself, the women who wearing them may feel its mandatory for them or don't want to wear anything else. So to force a women who wants to wear the nijab or burka into wearing say the hijab, seems wrong to me.

Islam does not treat women sexiest or abusive in the slightest.

Islam as it is currently practiced by most Muslims is a misogynistic, gender-biased religion. So is Christianity, with the exception of a small number of sects. So are large segments of Judaism, which shouldn't be surprising. They're all highly patriarchal religions because they all sprung from highly patriarchal societies.

Yes, I know that of certain Christian denominations. It's also irrelevant. We're not talking about just a head covering when we're talking about a burkha--we're talking about a kind of clothing that makes whoever wears it anonymous, and to compare it to jeans like you did above is just plain silly. It's clothing worn for religious reasons--that modesty you're describing is based in religious belief, nothing more. It's an excuse.

No, the definition of modesty is much more of a cultural belief than a religious one. A woman who wears a hijab does it for the same reason as a woman who wears a niqab. They simply disagree on what constitutes "modesty." A Mennonite woman who wears homemade clothing and ties her hair into a bun covered in a bonnet does so because of what she considers modesty - just as a woman who wears a burqa does so.

The difference is not one of religious beliefs. Instead, it is one of cultural differences on precisely what "modesty" means.

I would feel immodest if I wore a short skirt or pair of shorts or even very tight-fitting pants. For that reason, I do none of the above. I tend to wear long pants - quite often jeans. It isn't because I have a religious connection to denim or to long pants. It is because I feel immodest and therefore uncomfortable in many other modes of dress.

I really don't think religious beliefs should entitle one to outlandish priveliges. Anyone can make up a religion.

No, but dressing as one chooses is not an "outlandish privilege." And it has nothing to do with religion. If anyone who doesn't want to be seen in public chooses to wear a veil or burqua, regardless of religion, they should be able to, unless there is a clear and present reason that their identity is necessary.

People in public professions, like teachers and civil servants, should not dress like they're hiding.

Is a woman who won't wear strappy shirts "dressing like she's hiding"? What about a woman who won't wear short skirts? What about a man who doesn't wear long sleeves? Or society allows all of these things, yet many choose not to do them.

And for public comfort, if not safety, it's not unreasonable that people on the streets dress recognizable and don't hide their faces.

Individuals are not held to the same standard as the government. I don't have to worry about "public comfort." If someone in public doesn't like the way I'm dressed, they can fuck off.

No, but dressing as one chooses is not an "outlandish privilege." That depends on how one wants to dress, if at all.
People might want to walk around naked, I for one don't want to see that. Even though it might make for a better society if we were all used to it and not full of pent up sexual frustration, seeing every bit of bare skin as a sexual cue.

And it has nothing to do with religion.It is the reason they give for wanting to, "having to", wear those types of clothes.

Is a woman who won't wear strappy shirts "dressing like she's hiding"? What about a woman who won't wear short skirts?Well, duh. Of course all women should be forced to wear strappy shirts and short skirt, unless they're fat and ugly. In which case they should definitely wear a brown paper bag over their head. Yup, that sound like a grand ol' plan, you have me all figured out.

Individuals are not held to the same standard as the government. I don't have to worry about "public comfort." If someone in public doesn't like the way I'm dressed, they can fuck off.Or you could. Depends on the legislation that's in place.

No, the definition of modesty is much more of a cultural belief than a religious one. A woman who wears a hijab does it for the same reason as a woman who wears a niqab. They simply disagree on what constitutes "modesty." A Mennonite woman who wears homemade clothing and ties her hair into a bun covered in a bonnet does so because of what she considers modesty - just as a woman who wears a burqa does so.

The difference is not one of religious beliefs. Instead, it is one of cultural differences on precisely what "modesty" means.

I would feel immodest if I wore a short skirt or pair of shorts or even very tight-fitting pants. For that reason, I do none of the above. I tend to wear long pants - quite often jeans. It isn't because I have a religious connection to denim or to long pants. It is because I feel immodest and therefore uncomfortable in many other modes of dress.



No, but dressing as one chooses is not an "outlandish privilege." And it has nothing to do with religion. If anyone who doesn't want to be seen in public chooses to wear a veil or burqua, regardless of religion, they should be able to, unless there is a clear and present reason that their identity is necessary.



Is a woman who won't wear strappy shirts "dressing like she's hiding"? What about a woman who won't wear short skirts? What about a man who doesn't wear long sleeves? Or society allows all of these things, yet many choose not to do them.



Individuals are not held to the same standard as the government. I don't have to worry about "public comfort." If someone in public doesn't like the way I'm dressed, they can fuck off.


I agree with you. I covered all of my skin except for my face, neck, hands, and wrists today, and I still felt immodest because people could still tell that I'm female and that I'm skinny. I feel much safer around other people when I wear a mask. I feel like I can be myself then. If my shoulders or part of my legs are showing because I have to wear a uniform that I consider immodest, I feel completely vulnerable and it feels horrible.

That depends on how one wants to dress, if at all.

Not really. Unless a particular mode of dress (or undress, as it were) is a threat to the safety of others, there is absolutely no government interest in banning it. If I want to dress up like Tigger every day and walk through the park, that's my right.

There's a guy Atlanta, GA who dresses up "outlandishly" and goes around handing out flowers to people. Generally, he's in some form of women's clothing - often a tutu or hotpants or a majorette's uniform. Sometimes he even carries and twirls a baton. And he is no threat to anyone. As such, there is no reason to legally restrict his behavior.

People might want to walk around naked, I for one don't want to see that. Even though it might make for a better society if we were all used to it and not full of pent up sexual frustration, seeing every bit of bare skin as a sexual cue.

I don't want to see the large woman in the mini skirt and tube top, but my preferences don't control her. She isn't harming me, and she can dress as she likes.

It is the reason they give for wanting to, "having to", wear those types of clothes.

Modesty is required by their religion, yes. But the definition of modesty varies more by culture than by religion. Most people, regardless of religion, wish to hold to some standard of modesty. We simply disagree on where that standard lies.

Well, duh. Of course all women should be forced to wear strappy shirts and short skirt, unless they're fat and ugly. In which case they should definitely wear a brown paper bag over their head. Yup, that sound like a grand ol' plan, you have me all figured out.

I see no difference between forcing a woman who is uncomfortable doing so to wear a mini skirt and a tube top and forcing a woman who is uncomfortable doing so to remove her hijab, niqab, etc. It is one thing when it is a clear security issue. For instance, if police have reason to believe a dangerous suspect is within a given neighborhood, they would need to ask women with their faces covered to properly identify themselves. But there is no legal reason to keep her from wearing it as a general rule.

Or you could. Depends on the legislation that's in place.

Any legislation that would require that would be unjust legislation.

Burkhas and Hijabs= Almost no security risk. Should be searched, but not banned.

Niqabs are a different story entirely, of course.

Not really. Unless <...>Exactly. There's always exceptions, dependancies.

I don't want to see the large woman in the mini skirt and tube top, but my preferences don't control her. She isn't harming meWell, mental health wise, perhaps.

Modesty is required by their religion, yes. But the definition of modesty varies more by culture than by religion. Would it be too much to ask for then if they adapt to our cultural definition?

I see no difference between forcing a woman who is uncomfortable doing so to wear a mini skirt and a tube top and forcing a woman who is uncomfortable doing so to remove her hijab, niqab, etc.Well, you could look around you and see what's normal. Hijabs and niqab certainly are not that in these parts. There are plenty of other ways they can dress modestly.
There is a difference there, and if you can't see it, then you're not trying. Probably even trying not to. And if you could see the difference, perhaps you could give a more convincing argument why it should be allowed anyway.

It is one thing when it is a clear security issue. For instance, if police have reason to believe a dangerous suspect is within a given neighborhood, they would need to ask women with their faces covered to properly identify themselves. But there is no legal reason to keep her from wearing it as a general rule.For the well-being of the community sounds like a good enough reason to me. On the other hand pandering to the masses has its down sides with some issues.
But hiding yourself so much just comes across distrustfull, which of course is distrusted in return. And that doesn't make for a healthy society. (I suppose it would help if everyone talked amongst themselves a bit more. Because, really, once you've talked with people, you'll recognize them for who and what they are regardless of whether they hide their head)

Any legislation that would require that would be unjust legislation.I disagree, depending on the specifics.
And as bad an argument as it is, it's not like we haven't plenty unjust legislation already. Any legislation that's an undue bother to innocent people is unjust, after all. And boy are we bothered these days, in name of 'security'.

Yes, I think muslim women should be prohibited from dressing.

Exactly. There's always exceptions, dependancies.

Of course there are. And as soon as you can show that there is a clear and present danger to you from every woman who chooses to wear hijab, niqab, or burqua, then you'll have a point.

Note that you will also have to ban quite a few costumes - especially school mascots and Disney World costumes. Ghost costumes are right out the window.

Would it be too much to ask for then if they adapt to our cultural definition?

You can ask all you like. And they can refuse. Just as they can ask you to adapt to theirs, and you can refuse. The problem comes in when we try to legislate a cultural "norm".

Well, you could look around you and see what's normal. Hijabs and niqab certainly are not that in these parts. There are plenty of other ways they can dress modestly.

Modest dress is determined by the person who is trying to be modest, not by what others are doing. It doesn't matter if it's "normal." It is normal for people to shake hands when they meet in this culture. However, if I had an aversion to being touched, I highly doubt you'd advocate making it a legal requirement for me to shake someone's hand.

There is a difference there, and if you can't see it, then you're not trying. Probably even trying not to. And if you could see the difference, perhaps you could give a more convincing argument why it should be allowed anyway.

The only difference is a matter of what you think is appropriate and what you think is normal. Luckily, what you think should have no power over me unless I am actually harming you. Perhaps you are simply incapable of empathizing with those who are different from you?

For the well-being of the community sounds like a good enough reason to me.

As soon as you can demonstrate that these women pose a threat to you....

On the other hand pandering to the masses has its down sides with some issues.
But hiding yourself so much just comes across distrustfull, which of course is distrusted in return.

It "comes across as distrustful" because you refuse to make an effort to understand her point of view. This makes it a failing on your part, not on hers.

And that doesn't make for a healthy society.

Neither does the lack of empathy you are demonstrating. Of course, we aren't legally required to contribute to a "healthy society". If we were, all sorts of things would be illegal that are not.

(I suppose it would help if everyone talked amongst themselves a bit more. Because, really, once you've talked with people, you'll recognize them for who and what they are regardless of whether they hide their head)

Indeed!

I disagree, depending on the specifics.

Those specifics better entail a clear and present danger to others, or they are irrelevant.

And as bad an argument as it is, it's not like we haven't plenty unjust legislation already. Any legislation that's an undue bother to innocent people is unjust, after all. And boy are we bothered these days, in name of 'security'.

Indeed. So why push for more?

Don't see why we should do it. It's part of a culture and in my opinion all cultures should be respected equally.

On the other hand, I can see why some would see it as a barrier to integration.

I agree with you. I covered all of my skin except for my face, neck, hands, and wrists today, and I still felt immodest because people could still tell that I'm female and that I'm skinny. I feel much safer around other people when I wear a mask. I feel like I can be myself then. If my shoulders or part of my legs are showing because I have to wear a uniform that I consider immodest, I feel completely vulnerable and it feels horrible.

*hugs*

I don't know why you always get completely ignored in these conversations, Chandy. I don't have any arguments here, but I thought you deserved recognition. =)

*hugs*

I don't know why you always get completely ignored in these conversations, Chandy. I don't have any arguments here, but I thought you deserved recognition. =)

I don't know why either. Thanks, though.:)

*hugs*

I don't know why you always get completely ignored in these conversations, Chandy. I don't have any arguments here, but I thought you deserved recognition. =)

I agree. She is so smart, and def. needs to be recognized as a serious poster :)

Muslim women should be able to dress how they please. To pass laws deciding what they can and can't wear is discriminatory and without justification.

But, they already wear these clothes because of laws passed deciding what they can and can't wear in their original countries. So, is it discrimination if it's done in a country they're visiting or to which they've emigrated, but not if it's done in their country of origin?

But, they already wear these clothes because of laws passed deciding what they can and can't wear in their original countries. So, is it discrimination if it's done in a country they're visiting or to which they've emigrated, but not if it's done in their country of origin?

I was wondering the same thing. That's a very valid point. After all, it seems that Muslims are more inclined to bemoan the state of their clothing affairs in western nations, but not in predominately Islamic nations. Both want clothing restrictions, but one says a woman cannot show her face and the other wants her to show her face...

If that is what those women wish to wear we have no right to tell them otherwise.

I think all women should be banned from wearing clothes.shagadelic :D

But, they already wear these clothes because of laws passed deciding what they can and can't wear in their original countries. So, is it discrimination if it's done in a country they're visiting or to which they've emigrated, but not if it's done in their country of origin?

It is discriminatory and beyond the purpose of government for any government. Of course, those in the countries to which they are visiting or immigrating generally have more control over their governments than those in the countries of origin do.

Note, of course, that this makes an incorrect assumption - that all women who wish to dress this way are immigrants. While many are, it certainly is not true of all of them.

Also note that there is complaint in countries that require these modes of dress, although it is often stifled. Young women in Iran, for instance, are continually pushing the boundaries, and the legally accepted dress in that country has changed quite a bit over say, the last decade. One young woman who spent part of her early years in Iran and part in the US (IIRC) has recently written a book about the rebellious subcultures in Iran.

If that is what those women wish to wear we have no right to tell them otherwise.

Actually, we have every right to do so, as does any establishment wherein they represent a hindrance to performance.

It seems there are more and more cases of restrictions or banning of the dress Muslim women can have, most of these cases seem to come from Europe. So what I would like to know is if you support such actions in the name of security or what have you, or you feel it is nothing more than not allowing religious freedom or tolerance.

If I need to identify you for legal or law enforcement purposes, a picture of your face, uncovered, is necessary. And, during such an identification process (such as at court, or at a traffic stop), your face needs to be displayed.

Makes it essentially impossible to identify you without it, unless you're willing to give up DNA each time you want to be identified.

Not being able to require compliance in such identification procedures also makes it possible for criminals to go where they wish - the only thing they have to do is dress in a burka and they are free to go.

I don't have a problem with kids wearing such things at school - but by the same extension then, every other child and teacher should be able to wear the religious symbology of their choice, no matter how large and visible.

Same for the regular workplace, except where security or safety measures dictate otherwise.

Actually, we have every right to do so, as does any establishment wherein they represent a hindrance to performance.

You are an establishment? How would I hinder your performance by dressing as I please?

No, I think some people here at NS General are thinking that if a Muslim women in a burka wants to work in a machine shop, then it's fine if she gets her loose sleeve caught in a lathe, and gets a major avulsion injury to her arm (and gets her fingers chewed to a pulp in the process).

Needed a little fiber in your diet, eh?

I think he wants you to drop your pants.

I'm afraid he's not my fiance or my doctor, so he'll just have to deal with using his imagination. =)

Actually, we have every right to do so, as does any establishment wherein they represent a hindrance to performance.

No, I think some people here at NS General are thinking that if a Muslim women in a burka wants to work in a machine shop, then it's fine if she gets her loose sleeve caught in a lathe, and gets a major avulsion injury to her arm (and gets her fingers chewed to a pulp in the process).

You are an establishment? How would I hinder your performance by dressing as I please?

I think he wants you to drop your pants.

You are an establishment? How would I hinder your performance by dressing as I please?

I am, strangely enough, not an establishment. My point was that in such contexts wherein the covering of the face does impede normal practice; school, reception, medicine etc., the proper authorities have every right to preclude its being worn. Beyond that, I concede that people are free to dress like Sith lords.

No, I think some people here at NS General are thinking that if a Muslim women in a burka wants to work in a machine shop, then it's fine if she gets her loose sleeve caught in a lathe, and gets a major avulsion injury to her arm (and gets her fingers chewed to a pulp in the process).

Well, *actually*, we're thinking about how much we hate America and want to welcome in our new Muslim overlords.

Well, *actually*, we're thinking about how much we hate America and want to welcome in our new Muslim overlords.

Is that before, or after your pedophilia convention, with guest speaker Michael Jackson?

Is that before, or after your pedophilia convention, with guest speaker Michael Jackson?
No, it’s after we fulfil the Gay Agenda.

No, I think some people here at NS General are thinking that if a Muslim women in a burka wants to work in a machine shop, then it's fine if she gets her loose sleeve caught in a lathe, and gets a major avulsion injury to her arm (and gets her fingers chewed to a pulp in the process).

You have to concede, however, that she'd deserve it for rank stupidity if she did.

Ah, but the gay agenda is so 90s. I mean, apparently even the Castro neighborhood is becoming a haven for straights...
Me no understandy....

Um... “I’m Free!”...

No, it’s after we fulfil the Gay Agenda.

Ah, but the gay agenda is so 90s. I mean, apparently even the Castro neighborhood is becoming a haven for straights...

All women should be required to wear aprons, because they should be doing housework when they get married.

I am, strangely enough, not an establishment. My point was that in such contexts wherein the covering of the face does impede normal practice; school, reception, medicine etc., the proper authorities have every right to preclude its being worn. Beyond that, I concede that people are free to dress like Sith lords.

If covering the face truly does impede a person from completing a job or is endangering other, then you are absolutely right - and you won't get any argument from most people. Of course, it is up to those who wish to restrict it to demonstrate that it is a hindrance.

Although the idea of medicine as a whole being included in that is rather funny, considering that facial coverings are quite often a requirement in medicine....

I think that, in certian circumstances, such as in an airport, a female member of staff should be able to ask a muslim woman to remove her burkha. In all others, let 'em wear it.

If covering the face truly does impede a person from completing a job or is endangering other, then you are absolutely right - and you won't get any argument from most people. Of course, it is up to those who wish to restrict it to demonstrate that it is a hindrance.

Although the idea of medicine as a whole being included in that is rather funny, considering that facial coverings are quite often a requirement in medicine....

Masks requisite for surgery, yes. However, one does feel that the relationship between doctor and patient would be rendered pointless if the face of the doctor, and thus the means by which emotion is conveyed, were to be concealed.

Masks requisite for surgery, yes. However, one does feel that the relationship between doctor and patient would be rendered pointless if the face of the doctor, and thus the means by which emotion is conveyed, were to be concealed.

It really depends on the situation. I wouldn't expect many people to want to go to a general practice doctor who they couldn't easily relate to - so such a person wouldn't get much business. On the other hand, if we're talking about a radiologist, surgery nurse, pathologist, etc., you aren't looking at nearly as much interaction with patients.

I think all women should be banned from wearing clothes.
Like on Ferengenar or whatever the Ferengi homeworld is called...

Masks requisite for surgery, yes. However, one does feel that the relationship between doctor and patient would be rendered pointless if the face of the doctor, and thus the means by which emotion is conveyed, were to be concealed.
So long as the doctor/nurse could see how I feel and treats me, I couldn't give two hoots about she thinks of it. In any case, it shouldn't be too hard to get to know your GP, if you go to the same one each time, whether she wears a veil or not.

Burkas should be banned, but not for anti-terrorism, but for being a highly insulting form of clothing. If they want to hide their face, they need tight-fitting leather ninja outfits that accentuate the chest! ;)