NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, so posting on this topic is probably ill-advised, given that I'm unfamiliar with it, don't ordinarily concern myself with religious issues, and don't know much about England - but what the hell, here goes: :p

The "Niqab," or full-body scarf for Islamic women - you know, the one where you only see the eyes. I'm reading this article just now, which says, setting the scene:

LONDON: Increasingly, Muslim women in Britain take their children to school and run errands covered head to toe in flowing black gowns that allow only a slit for their eyes.

Like little else, their appearance has unnerved Britons, testing the limits of tolerance in this stridently secular nation. Many veiled women say they are targets of abuse. At the same time, efforts are growing to place legal curbs on the full Muslim veil, known as the niqab.

The past year has seen numerous examples: A lawyer dressed in a niqab was told by an immigration judge that she could not represent a client because, he said, he could not hear her. A teacher wearing a niqab was told by a provincial school to go home. A student who was barred from wearing a niqab took her case to the courts, and lost. In fact, the British education authorities are proposing a ban on the niqab in schools altogether.


http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=6263112

So naturally, the issue is pretty much foreign to me. I've never seen anyone walking around town in a head-to-toe Muslim garmet, and though it seems that only a small percentage wear one in England, it does happen.

So the question is: should wearing the massive garmet be discouraged in government or school settings? Is this a "real" issue, or is the newspaper just creating a tempest in a teapot here?

I'm all for freedom, of course, and wouldn't want peoples' clothing choices regulated by the government under ordinary circumstances, but there's still the practical concern of teachers standing in front of a group of eyeballs, rather than students, for example. :p I can sort of understand the worry, so I thought I'd ask around. ;) So, what's your opinion?

Alright, so posting on this topic is probably ill-advised, given that I'm unfamiliar with it, don't ordinarily concern myself with religious issues, and don't know much about England - but what the hell, here goes: :p

The "Niqab," or full-body scarf for Islamic women - you know, the one where you only see the eyes. I'm reading this article just now, which says, setting the scene:



http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=6263112

So naturally, the issue is pretty much foreign to me. I've never seen anyone walking around town in a head-to-toe Muslim garmet, and though it seems that only a small percentage wear one in England, it does happen.

So the question is: should wearing the massive garmet be discouraged in government or school settings? Is this a "real" issue, or is the newspaper just creating a tempest in a teapot here?

I'm all for freedom, of course, and wouldn't want peoples' clothing choices regulated by the government under ordinary circumstances, but there's still the practical concern of teachers standing in front of a group of eyeballs, rather than students, for example. :p I can sort of understand the worry, so I thought I'd ask around. ;) So, what's your opinion?

I would discourage people from wearing it in most formal settings, such as the lawyer.

However, they should be able to wear it in casual settings.

I would discourage people from wearing it in most formal settings, such as the lawyer.

However, they should be able to wear it in casual settings.

I'm not sure how far the debate goes over there, but it seems to be centering on what's appropriate in schools. France has alrady banned the headscarf, I believe, which doesn't even cover the whole face. I guess that since school is neither completely formal nor completely casual, it's a tough decision.

Jack Straw, in whatever capacity he works for the UK Gov't these days, recently got into this exact controversy after saying he would politely ask a constituent wearing the Niqab to take it off when talking to him within office.

Frankly, I think the full Niqab has been representative of the darker side of extremism and was a central feature of the drive to recruit Islamists in the mid-90's on UK university campuses.

The funny thing was that those recruiters, mostly male, were then disappointed to find that the women, taking chasteness to the full, stopped talking to those very recruiters leaving them as frustrated, if not more so, than they already were.

The funny thing was that those recruiters, mostly male, were then disappointed to find that the women, taking chasteness to the full, stopped talking to those very recruiters leaving them as frustrated, if not more so, than they already were.

Now *that* is the definition of a major backfire. :p

If they want to wear it, so be it, once you go down the road of central government forcing their opinions of those below, your down a very dangerous road indeed, I mean on this logic a similar thread should be made about the Rabbi clothing etc.

Alright, so posting on this topic is probably ill-advised, given that I'm unfamiliar with it, don't ordinarily concern myself with religious issues, and don't know much about England - but what the hell, here goes: :p

The "Niqab," or full-body scarf for Islamic women - you know, the one where you only see the eyes. I'm reading this article just now, which says, setting the scene:



http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=6263112

So naturally, the issue is pretty much foreign to me. I've never seen anyone walking around town in a head-to-toe Muslim garmet, and though it seems that only a small percentage wear one in England, it does happen.

So the question is: should wearing the massive garmet be discouraged in government or school settings? Is this a "real" issue, or is the newspaper just creating a tempest in a teapot here?

I'm all for freedom, of course, and wouldn't want peoples' clothing choices regulated by the government under ordinary circumstances, but there's still the practical concern of teachers standing in front of a group of eyeballs, rather than students, for example. :p I can sort of understand the worry, so I thought I'd ask around. ;) So, what's your opinion?

So long as Christians can wear their crosses, Jews can wear their stars, and Catholics can wear their altar boys, Muslims should be allowed to wear their niqabs.

So long as Christians can wear their crosses, Jews can wear their stars, and Catholics can wear their altar boys, Muslims should be allowed to wear their niqabs.

I think they're all banned in French schools - all equally illegal. I don't quite understand it myself, but it's interesting either way. :)

I feel a deep and abiding dislike of the Niqab, since it is an example of the worst kind of chauvanism that society can grow (the religious kind). Certainly, for those under the age of 18, the Niqab should be discouraged (IMO, it's almost tatamount to child abuse to humiliate your child like that). However, the right to free practice of religion, and freedom of expression mean that banning them would also be wrong.

If they want to wear it, so be it, once you go down the road of central government forcing their opinions of those below, your down a very dangerous road indeed, I mean on this logic a similar thread should be made about the Rabbi clothing etc.

That's fair enough to a point, and that point is the face.

The face should be visible in certain scenarios - banks for example.

This shouldn't be about religion, or religious customs, it should be about the basic right to see someone's face when they're talking to you, since it tells us so much about someone, their mood, their opinion or their interest.

I'm happy for anyone to wear a Niqab as they wish but I also want certain situations, where seeing the face is important, to not have someone behind what's essentially a mask.

I can see teaching would be one, a fine line perhaps but I can see it.

Anonymity can be good in religion, as in confession boxes, but bad in society.

I think they're all banned in French schools - all equally illegal. I don't quite understand it myself, but it's interesting either way. :)

Spirituality is a part of what defines us as a species; for good or ill, our beliefs in the hereafter and what really makes us human have fueled some of the greatest changes in our history, motivated some of the best (and admittedly worst) men to ever live, and has impacted many people very deeply. I can understand banning harmful religious practices like mass suicide, ritualized murder, or in some cases carrying symbolic weaponry, but to ban even harmless religious trinkets? That's ridiculous. I wish I could find my hawk necklace again; it symbolizes my totemic beliefs, and I wore it with pride. I still believe just as strongly in my animal spirit as I did then, but that particular piece of silver and chain is lost to me at the moment.. perhaps an allusion to the material holding little permanence when compared to the spiritual.

In most cases, I wouldn't give a flying fart what other people do. Live and let live, y'know? But the fact that it covers the face makes it a bit of a sticky situation, one that puts me on the other side of the argument. For me, I don't think it should be allowed in *most* cases. My public school, for example, bans the wearing of 'hats', being defined as a covering for the head. This includes hoods, baseball caps, etc. In the same way, we don't allow people to walk around public places such as a mall wearing a ski mask or balaclava. How is a niqab different, save the (arguably) religious overtones?

EDIT: Barringtonia beat me to it, and more concisely, I might add.

That's fair enough to a point, and that point is the face.

The face should be visible in certain scenarios - banks for example.

This shouldn't be about religion, or religious customs, it should be about the basic right to see someone's face when they're talking to you, since it tells us so much about someone, their mood, their opinion or their interest.

I'm happy for anyone to wear a Niqab as they wish but I also want certain situations, where seeing the face is important, to not have someone behind what's essentially a mask.

I can see teaching would be one, a fine line perhaps but I can see it.

Anonymity can be good in religion, as in confession boxes, but bad in society.

You seemed to have misunderstood me, if the families are found to be forcing the wearing of it on the daughter against her will, I am against that, but in most cases the woman isn't so vulnerable and actually wants to wear it as a strong religious/political statement etc, See: Pakistan.

My point was, once you start removing independent roles for people in society, be they religious, political etc, you go down a bad path. The headdress is beyond everything else a form of self-identity.

This includes hoods, baseball caps, etc. In the same way, we don't allow people to walk around public places such as a mall wearing a ski mask or balaclava. How is a niqab different, save the (arguably) religious overtones?


I think the religious connotation *is* the only practical difference, since it's total obscurity from anyone's view. It's an interesting phenomenon.

See, the tent suit isn't even part of the religion! It's like saying head to toe red clothing is required for communists.

See, the tent suit isn't even part of the religion! It's like saying head to toe red clothing is required for communists.

True enough, I'm sure. Well actually, I'm not sure whether the Koran mentions dress, but it doesn't seem to be uniformly mandated across the Muslim world. However, there's a pretty strong cultural demand for the scarf, for good or ill.

See, the tent suit isn't even part of the religion! It's like saying head to toe red clothing is required for communists.

Personally I prefer the Stalin Generalissimo style hat and the military uniform best, although I could go for the humble dress - say like Mao.

hmm forcing women to wear less clothes so they fit in with society's standard, yeah that will show em' how civilized are culture is maybe with luck we can make them look Italian!

though I am left to wonder what they wear under them maybe a good breeze is in order :confused:

True enough, I'm sure. Well actually, I'm not sure whether the Koran mentions dress, but it doesn't seem to be uniformly mandated across the Muslim world. However, there's a pretty strong cultural demand for the scarf, for good or ill.

Well your talking as if it's either one extreme (wear a full body black dress) or another extreme (don't wear it full stop), your ignoring the fact that most Muslims wear a small head scarf (usually green or whatever) in which case you can perfectly see their face, and they wear perfectly normal clothing, I go to a university with many Muslim women and none I have seen wear a full black dress thing.

hmm forcing women to wear less clothes so they fit in with society's standard, yeah that will show em' how civilized are culture is maybe with luck we can make them look Italian!

though I am left to wonder what they wear under them maybe a good breeze is in order :confused:

To be fair, I think it's the face that's the sticking point, not clothing generally. I think we had a case in Florida where a Muslim woman wanted to have her whole face covered for her driver's license photo - I think that has to be the line! :p

You seemed to have misunderstood me, if the families are found to be forcing the wearing of it on the daughter against her will, I am against that, but in most cases the woman isn't so vulnerable and actually wants to wear it as a strong religious/political statement etc, See: Pakistan.

My point was, once you start removing independent roles for people in society, be they religious, political etc, you go down a bad path. The headdress is beyond everything else a form of self-identity.

I'm not talking about any religious aspect here, and I'm not commenting on whether people are individually forced to do anything.

I'm simply saying that when it comes to the face, which in terms of communication is the most important part of the body, it's a problem when it's covered and I can see the reasoning behind asking people not cover their face in certain situations.

I can see, regardless of my personal opinion, that people should not be walking around naked, to take this to the opposite extreme.

If it takes a central government to formalize the rules of that, well that's why I vote.

Well your talking as if it's either one extreme (wear a full body black dress) or another extreme (don't wear it full stop), your ignoring the fact that most Muslims wear a small head scarf (usually green or whatever) in which case you can perfectly see their face, and they wear perfectly normal clothing, I go to a university with many Muslim women and none I have seen wear a full black dress thing.

I'm not "ignoring" whether they wear scarfs or full garmets - I have no idea, either way. ;) Not too many Muslims here. :p I assumed that there's some cultural attachments that require the full deal in some cases and the basic hair covering in others. But it could depend on circumstances.

I think we had a case in Florida where a Muslim woman wanted to have her whole face covered for her driver's license photo - I think that has to be the line! :p

I think that would be because driving with clothing over your eyes isn't allowed though :p

edit: and for seriousness sake people have different eyes and such, they seem to be able to get away with it in Kuwait (?) why not here

The poll asks if it should be discouraged. I think it most definitely should be discouraged, worldwide.
Should it be discouraged from official side? Now, that's a lot more tricky. The arguments against covering up ones face are plenty and some of them very rational. For example, it make communication needlessly difficult, as it not only is a slight barrier to the spoken word, but also a complete barrier to the other's facial expression. I'm not sure about the exact percentages, but humn communication is for a very, very large part non-verbal.
Another problem is identification. How do you check if that drivers licence really belongs to the black veil in front of you, and not to the one next to it? To give a legal example from Germany, you've got the right to demonstrate for or against anything you please. But the law says that as a demonstrator, you're not allowed to cover up and hide your face (sensible, considering the violent nature of some demonstration in Germany in the past).
The same problem might occur in schools, when teachers might not be able to tell their Muslim female students apart.

Personally, I'd rather see these symbols of misogyny gone, but I wouldn't support an outright law against them.

It should be the choice of the woman, flat and simple. This is not a case where I am personally harmed by the woman next to me being covered head to toe. Their choice to practice that part of their religion does not infringe on any of my rights or safety, so I have no problem with it.

If they are being forced by someone else against their will (and assuming they are not a minor, and therefore have a say in the matter to begin with), then I understand it to be a problem. If it is the woman's choice, and she says she wants to wear it, let her.

True enough, I'm sure. Well actually, I'm not sure whether the Koran mentions dress, but it doesn't seem to be uniformly mandated across the Muslim world. However, there's a pretty strong cultural demand for the scarf, for good or ill.

I seem to remember that it does mention dressing decently and covering up at some places, but the modern versions like the niqab, the chador or the burka are not mentioned or described in any form of detail

I seem to remember that it does mention dressing decently and covering up at some places, but the modern versions like the niqab, the chador or the burka are not mentioned or described in any form of detail

The Qu'ran says "Oh Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies."

Or at least that's an English translation.

The idea was to protect women - it's unsure whether it meant it as a command or as good advice - the Hadith also advises, yet again, not sure it's a command.

The Qu'ran says

Or at least that's an English translation.

The idea was to protect women - it's unsure whether it meant it as a command or as good advice - the Hadith also advises, yet again, not sure it's a command.

Opens OT

oshi

Closes OT...

I seem to remember that it does mention dressing decently and covering up at some places, but the modern versions like the niqab, the chador or the burka are not mentioned or described in any form of detail

That's the way I understood it. That is, the niqab being cultural, rather than religious mandate.

I'm simply saying that when it comes to the face, which in terms of communication is the most important part of the body, it's a problem when it's covered and I can see the reasoning behind asking people not cover their face in certain situations.
To be fair, I think it's the face that's the sticking point, not clothing generally. I think we had a case in Florida where a Muslim woman wanted to have her whole face covered for her driver's license photo - I think that has to be the line! :p

And that *is* the point, at least for me. Freedom of religion all the way, but wearing a mask for a driver's license photo or while walking into a bank just isn't ok. Dress the argument up as you like, but that's what it boils down to.

The Qu'ran says

Or at least that's an English translation.

The idea was to protect women - it's unsure whether it meant it as a command or as good advice - the Hadith also advises, yet again, not sure it's a command.

Hm. I wonder, though, whether the women who wear the full garmet do it for reasons of literally interpreting the Koran, or according to some cultural standard. There seems to be room for a range of interpretations.

The Qu'ran says

Or at least that's an English translation.

The idea was to protect women - it's unsure whether it meant it as a command or as good advice - the Hadith also advises, yet again, not sure it's a command.

Protection, plus it was not very far from the traditional dress already worn in the area. I can see how this can be read as "head to toe", while also leaving room for interpretation, as usual.

And that *is* the point, at least for me. Freedom of religion all the way, but wearing a mask for a driver's license photo or while walking into a bank just isn't ok. Dress the argument up as you like, but that's what it boils down to.

That seems reasonable enough. Some situations seem to call for reasonable means of identifying people. It will be interesting to see how they go about it over there.

Oh, now look at the little gem I found here :



(1 Corinthians 11:4-7)

A good example of one that's been (I believe) completely discarded. :p

Oh, now look at the little gem I found here :

For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man.

(1 Corinthians 11:4-7)

Hm. I wonder, though, whether the women who wear the full garmet do it for reasons of literally interpreting the Koran, or according to some cultural standard. There seems to be room for a range of interpretations.

Oh, now look at the little gem I found here :

For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man.

(1 Corinthians 11:4-7)

There's your answer TPC, it's the cultural standard of treating women as the property of men

There's your answer TPC, it's the cultural standard of treating women as the property of men

I tried to entertain the idea that some women really *want* to wear the full garmet, as one woman interviewed in the article claims, but it does seem rather dubious on the face of it. :(

A good example of one that's been (I believe) completely discarded. :p

It just didn't fit with the culture of Europe, I think. There was no tradition of veiling up before Christinaity arrived, and so it never caught on. In the Middle East, there was this tradition, and it stuck. It's more of a cultural thing justified by religion than a religious thing.

See, that's the funny thing with all the Abrahamic religions : Things in their books that don't fit the mood of the time or the personal morals of the individual you're talking to are declared "merely symbolic" :D

I tried to entertain the idea that some women really *want* to wear the full garmet, as one woman interviewed in the article claims, but it does seem rather dubious on the face of it. :(

Oh, I've no doubt that some do want to wear them. The question I have is why do they want to wear them? And why would it make a difference to them not to wear them?

Oh, I've no doubt that some do want to wear them. The question I have is why do they want to wear them? And why would it make a difference to them not to wear them?

Assuming brutal punishment and/or honor killing is mostly off the table, given standards in England, that's probably a pretty good question. It could just be a one-upsmanship kind of deal, out-Musliming the Muhammads next door, or something :p or maybe more of a cultural remnant of the old country that the family tries to enforce. The article wasn't too helpful there - maybe there's some better sources on the topic, I hope.

Egnatius Metellus ... took a cudgel and beat his wife to death because she had drunk some wine. Not only did no one charge him with a crime, but no one even blamed him. Everyone considered this an excellent example of one who had justly paid the penalty for violating the laws of sobriety. Indeed, any woman who immoderately seeks the use of wine closes the door on all virtues and opens it to vices.

There was also the harsh marital severity of Gaius Sulpicius Gallus. He divorced his wife because he had caught her outdoors with her head uncovered: a stiff penalty, but not without a certain logic. 'The law,' he said, 'prescribes for you my eyes alone to which you may prove your beauty. For these eyes you should provide the ornaments of beauty, for these be lovely: entrust yourself to their more certain knowledge. If you, with needless provocation, invite the look of anyone else, you must be suspected of wrongdoing.'

From Rome, 166BC, pre-Christianity - link (http://www.stoa.org/diotima/anthology/wlgr/)

it's unsure whether it meant it as a command or as good advice

Well, I think that originally the command was only directed towards his own wives...I can vaguely recall the hadith where Muhammad was upset that people were staring at one of his prettier wives. Later on the law was applied to all women as a way to prevent unmarried sex, the idea being that a man could not be seduced by a woman he couldn't see. A veil covering the face wasn't uncommon at that time, and was worn by both men and women, but for different, more practical reasons, such as a protection against the frequent sandstorms that occured in that area.

As for wether it's a command or just good advice is a disputed matter, but theres a hadith that mentions that whenever there is a lack of knowledge about wether something is "Farul" (Mandatory) or "Sunna" (optional but encouraged) you should follow that command as if it were mandatory. And even if were it only a Sunna following it means that you get greater rewards in the afterlife. It's all about reward and punishment incentive, wear it and get better rewards in heaven...or suffer punishment for possibly discarding a farul. By the, way keep in mind, that all my sources of information are from the Sunni version of hadiths..and I'm totally unfamiliar with what Shi'ites beleive, I think they have their own set of hadith outside of Bukhari altogether.

As for my own, personal feelings about the Niqab. I'm not really a fan. My Mom recently told me that she's feeling pressured to start wearing a headscarf (not the full body covering..just hair) since all her friends are starting to wear it, I simply told her that if she doesnt want to she doesnt have to...(ironically enough, she's a Muslim woman who doesnt like the idea of a veil, especially for children to be wearing it to school,...but she's a terrible Muslim tbh:p). Basicalyl, my stance is that it's a symbol of Islamic misogyny (in case anyone misunderstood that, I'm not saying that misogyny is unique to Islam) and while I dislike it, I feel that a person should have total control and freedom over what he/she chooses to wear.

From Rome, 166BC, pre-Christianity - link (http://www.stoa.org/diotima/anthology/wlgr/)

Looks like the trend is fairly old then, no question. :p

The reason the women wear the niqab isn't because they are extremists or anything, simply because they try to be righteous people. As far as I know, Muslim women are supposed to be veiled from males, and contact between the two, particularly verbally, can only be done if a veil is present between the two (which the woman wears). The women wears it as a symbol of chastity, modesty, and humility, why ban it? If she must take it off, I'm not too supportive on that, but she could at least lower her gaze when she is to take the head covering off.

Religion is essentially perfect, the people who follow it necessarily are not (quoted from my best friend).

I know of the niqab stance in Islam. It is recommended to wear it, however, the hijab, the covering of the hair, is mandatory.

(Some of the rulings in Islam I've listed vary from school to school, so let's not debate on that, please)

Assuming brutal punishment and/or honor killing is mostly off the table, given standards in England, that's probably a pretty good question. It could just be a one-upsmanship kind of deal, out-Musliming the Muhammads next door, or something :p or maybe more of a cultural remnant of the old country that the family tries to enforce. The article wasn't too helpful there - maybe there's some better sources on the topic, I hope.

Or it could just be it's religiously incorrect to them? Or they try to wear it? Some or forced to wear it, some do it voluntarily.

The attire of a niqabi (one who wears the niqab) is very similar to the attire of a nun. The only difference, the face is mostly covered.

Or it could just be it's religiously incorrect to them? Or they try to wear it? Some or forced to wear it, some do it voluntarily.

The attire of a niqabi (one who wears the niqab) is very similar to the attire of a nun. The only difference, the face is mostly covered.

A critical difference in some settings, though, don't you think? It would seem to be awkward at best in some situations. Whether coercion is involved will vary, of course, but there's bound to be social complications either way.

Or it could just be it's religiously incorrect to them? Or they try to wear it? Some or forced to wear it, some do it voluntarily.

The attire of a niqabi (one who wears the niqab) is very similar to the attire of a nun. The only difference, the face is mostly covered.

And the attire of a nun doesn't require a headscarf. Or covered wrists or ankles. But, yes, other than that... :rolleyes:

And the attire of a nun doesn't require a headscarf. Or covered wrists or ankles. But, yes, other than that... :rolleyes:

Not to mention that nuns are generally adults who decide to dedicate their lives to religion, rather than children goaded into it by parents. Kids can be pressured to join the priesthood, I'm sure, but it might be more difficult.

i really worry that the idea of a fashion police is being seriously entertained by certain people. since when does government have any right to dictate dress codes (outside of government buildings i suppose)?

i really worry that the idea of a fashion police is being seriously entertained by certain people. since when does government have any right to dictate dress codes (outside of government buildings i suppose)?

Government buildings are pretty much the issue, according to the article. Schools and courtrooms and all that. I agree that there shouldn't be restrictions for street attire. If you want to wrap yourself in 30 layers of cloth and stumble around your own back yard, there should be no issue. :p

I
for seriousness sake people have different eyes and such, they seem to be able to get away with it in Kuwait (?) why not here

Because in Kuwait women do not go into banks, drive, or do other such activities that would imply that they had some form of legal identity separate from that of their husband/father/son. Here (the west) they do these things because they are legally the equal of men.

Wearing masks in public in the UK should be illegal.

Wearing masks in public in the UK should be illegal.

That's going to ruin Halloween. :p

Wearing masks in public in the UK should be illegal.

And here I wanted to go to London to re-enact V For Vendetta...

Government buildings are pretty much the issue, according to the article. Schools and courtrooms and all that. I agree that there shouldn't be restrictions for street attire. If you want to wrap yourself in 30 layers of cloth and stumble around your own back yard, there should be no issue. :p

i wouldn't class schools as strictly government buildings though. veils and masks ought to get the same treatment as bike helmets i reckon, visitors don't get to wear them and they can just accept that or not enter sensitive areas. but there is no reason why employees or students should not be allowed veils, these people are already identifiable and trusted, what they wear should not be an issue.

I have no problem with people covering themselves. Although I do happen to think it's weird to cover yourself from head to toe in black in the summer heat.

And here I wanted to go to London to re-enact V For Vendetta...

Guy Fawkes was a Cathlylick cryminal.

i wouldn't class schools as strictly government buildings though. veils and masks ought to get the same treatment as bike helmets i reckon, visitors don't get to wear them and they can just accept that or not enter sensitive areas. but there is no reason why employees or students should not be allowed veils, these people are already identifiable and trusted, what they wear should not be an issue.

There seems to be a good argument for deciding either way - it's a touchy thing when religion gets involved, but I can see a variety of policy outcomes working out. It will be interesting to see how it goes over there, and how teachers/lawyers/etc. handle their unseen clients/pupils.

Wearing masks in public in the UK should be illegal.

It already is. The police have the power to arrest people who have their face covered if they have (any) reason to believe they are doing so in order to aid a criminal act.

In practice, this means cracking down on demonstrators...

Ordinarily, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to wear it. But at places like banks and airports, security and safety should overrule religious freedom, which means, like motorcyclists, people wearing niqabs should have to show their faces.

It already is. The police have the power to arrest people who have their face covered if they have (any) reason to believe they are doing so in order to aid a criminal act.

In practice, this means cracking down on demonstrators...

Yes, well that was sort of the point. In a similar vein you can arrest people who show up in proscribed dress to demonstrate.

It worked damn well against the BUF, and I don't see why it should be stopped now.

Edit: Though the mask thing goes back much further than the public order acts of 1934 (-?). At one point it was a hanging offense to wear a mask in public at night. Good show!

Alright, so posting on this topic is probably ill-advised, given that I'm unfamiliar with it, don't ordinarily concern myself with religious issues, and don't know much about England - but what the hell, here goes: :p

The "Niqab," or full-body scarf for Islamic women - you know, the one where you only see the eyes. I'm reading this article just now, which says, setting the scene:



http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=6263112

So naturally, the issue is pretty much foreign to me. I've never seen anyone walking around town in a head-to-toe Muslim garmet, and though it seems that only a small percentage wear one in England, it does happen.

So the question is: should wearing the massive garmet be discouraged in government or school settings? Is this a "real" issue, or is the newspaper just creating a tempest in a teapot here?

I'm all for freedom, of course, and wouldn't want peoples' clothing choices regulated by the government under ordinary circumstances, but there's still the practical concern of teachers standing in front of a group of eyeballs, rather than students, for example. :p I can sort of understand the worry, so I thought I'd ask around. ;) So, what's your opinion?


The sisters that wear hijab, jibab, or niqaab, do so based on their level of iman, or faith. Therefore, the sisters that wear niqaab, do so because they have a higher iman, and can resist the pressure, the stares and so on. Since the west is a society which allows public expression of religion, then yes, i think they should be allowed to wear it wherever, when ever.

The sisters that wear hijab, jibab, or niqaab, do so based on their level of iman, or faith. Therefore, the sisters that wear niqaab, do so because they have a higher iman, and can resist the pressure, the stares and so on. Since the west is a society which allows public expression of religion, then yes, i think they should be allowed to wear it wherever, when ever.
Ok fine, they can wear the niqab any and everywhere they want... as long as anyone else can wear full-body costumes that obscure their identity and sex. I'm going to wonder around London in a full suit of plate mail.

The sisters that wear hijab, jibab, or niqaab, do so based on their level of iman, or faith. Therefore, the sisters that wear niqaab, do so because they have a higher iman, and can resist the pressure, the stares and so on. Since the west is a society which allows public expression of religion, then yes, i think they should be allowed to wear it wherever, when ever.

If Muslims are like the rest of us, it's probably the case that the correlation between piety and outward expression of belief via garmet or trinket is rather weak. I've found that the more someone's dress screams "look at me, I'm a devout believer in X," the less sincerity they ultimately have. :p But that's another issue.

As for the head-to-toe thing, would "whereever, when ever" include banks or courtrooms or schools? It doesn't seem like many people mind the headdress at the grocery store, but rather dislike it in the classroom or in court.

No, but it shouldn't be encouraged either.

Ok fine, they can wear the niqab any and everywhere they want... as long as anyone else can wear full-body costumes that obscure their identity and sex. I'm going to wonder around London in a full suit of plate mail.

Go for it.

If Muslims are like the rest of us, it's probably the case that the correlation between piety and outward expression of belief via garmet or trinket is rather weak. I've found that the more someone's dress screams "look at me, I'm a devout believer in X," the less sincerity they ultimately have. :p But that's another issue.

As for the head-to-toe thing, would "whereever, when ever" include banks or courtrooms or schools? It doesn't seem like many people mind the headdress at the grocery store, but rather dislike it in the classroom or in court.

Its a little silly to think that religious expression would get one barred from school. But it happens, and its very wrong. Whats the problem with it? Do you people honestly think they are going to wear bomb jackets underneath to 8th grade lectures? I mean come on, grow up.

Here is a song i love, abuot this very same subject
AWAW Reporting:2004 and things have changed it ain’t the same no more. Whilst before they only stared at you, now adays they try to force their opinion, entering your dominion talking about rights and your low stature.Everything from your role as a mother, to the scarf that you cover with, in the stands,bearing witness to one thing or another and overruled if you object, your honour is under pressure, cause the shields that protect you are getting shorter and lesser. I see you struggle just to find meals, fighting the wind and rain in search of those Halal deals, knowing the gain is yet to come and when there’s no wheels you carry baby Zahra in one hand till she feels heavier than the shopping bags. My son at your heals trying hard to be a man in the absence of his father. Hand inside your hand trying to lead you through the jahil streets, reciting Suras that you taught him only just last week. You’re my rock you give me strength and power through your insistence that we both go out and carry this dawah. I love mysisters and I’ll die before I see you harmed in front of me, then in my grave I’ll beg invoke Allah to see you free from all the suffering you’ve felt so far because of me. I let it slip and now the damned Kuffar are blatantly attacking you, your ideas, your loves, your fears and for years all we have seen are your tears forgive us sister.


WG Reporting:They don’t know you, think they got you sussed. Got the world believing that you grieving down to us. In the West its tough,it ain’t enough that they swear and frown at you they even dare to raise their hands at you. I know its hard walking them streets and boulevards from your head to your feet jilbabed and scarved. With sun blazing heat burning up the concrete, folks gazing like you’re about to bomb the high street.Enough hate in their glares to get your skinscarred and barred from school yards by the bourgeois. Cause where you’re at what you wear is un-bearable part of the fact is your faith is un-tearable. You got’em all shook,so their new hook is banning your veil and liberating you with New Look, Season Channel, nudity, Gucci and Fcuk as they cook a plot in their melting pot that simmers in hell well. These damn crooks,they want us all hooked on their secular thought caught up in a war fought through magazines and books pumping their liberal filth and gook, their plan is destroy your Iman and have Islam forsook. And now they’ re searching every cranny and nook,and now they’re marching out their armies and sending their spooks. Even back home ain’t as safe as it should be, I swear we’re working hard so it would be. You see the West’s is planning in stealth hence all you’ve seen in Philastine has been drama and death. In Iraq all we’ve had is pure trauma and wealth usurped, whilst your kids struggle for breath. And it’s a mess but you stand firm nevertheless. Tall and proud in your shroud you wont settle for less.Oppressed, living in fear did make you cry,Mutasima fell on deaf ears but didn’t brake you. It made you a soldier you stayed true and now you’re striving raising an army to save you. Never again allowing a man to enslave you, a brave few reviving a nation beside you and rising!

AWAW Reporting:And it’s a Fard that we protect your honour. I know its hard to believe you have so many brothers and still ain’t safe in the streets today.You’re missing school again and again and they say they’ll let you attend, sister as long as you bend but you stand straight and tall, jilbab and all, going from school to school, checking their protocols. Although you do value your education, no hesitation in rejecting calls for integration, standing ovation. You understand this is test no less and progress is just a matter of who worships best. So redress the balance,aim much higher than that. Become a mother,doctor, engineer no fear it’s a fact you can do anything you want to do your limits are, that which are sent down by your creator and you know they hate that and all the fuss they make is only cause they’re jealous. A pack of wolves hunting the sheep don’t weep your shepherds are back and they’re stacked with an agendanot to render this Deen. Aint no pretenders like the leaders we’ve seen. Believe we say what we mean. I know its hard being a throne-less Queen, Al Hakim has promised all that you dream. And in between that time and this, persist, stay strong, as long as we exist we’ll do our best to assist. You belong to an Ummah that is fighting hard to rid you of wrong. I know its hard and your tired and scarred from all the places your barred, butdon’t cry you know we’ve come this far, try tillwe die fi si bil

Its a little silly to think that religious expression would get one barred from school. But it happens, and its very wrong. Whats the problem with it? Do you people honestly think they are going to wear bomb jackets underneath to 8th grade lectures? I mean come on, grow up.


I don't think it's the fear of bombings (anyone with a backpack can pull that one off), but rather the lack of identifyability, if that's a word. :p You're basically looking at a set of eyes, and nothing else. It seems to complicate matters in some social situations and in cases where it's important to know who you're looking at - court, school, banks, etc. The rule should be tolerance for odd garmets, I think, but the exceptions seem to be numerous in this case, just from what I can tell.

Its a little silly to think that religious expression would get one barred from school.
There is a difference between religious expression and fanatical religious expression. Followers of voodoo and Santeria arn't allowed to go around sacrificing things.

Whats the problem with it? Do you people honestly think they are going to wear bomb jackets underneath to 8th grade lectures? I mean come on, grow up.
How can they differentiate one fanatic from another? They are all wearing the same obscuring garb.

There is a difference between religious expression and fanatical religious expression. Followers of voodoo and Santeria arn't allowed to go around sacrificing things.

Right because being modest, and covering your body up to ensure men are not t lusting after you is the same as sacrificing living, breathing things. The difference is quite clear, one is harmless, and the other is killing something.



How can they differentiate one fanatic from another? They are all wearing the same obscuring garb.

Way to generalize. Might as well not let christians in, because they could hate secularized schools, and bomb the biology classes for teach evolution, and geology classes for teaching that the world is more than 6000 yrs old. Oh ya, better bar communists too, because they might attack economics classes.

Way to be a generalizing ass hat.:)

Well I don't really know any Muslims, but it doesn't seem like they arrogantly think their beliefs make them superior to everyone else, not like christian fundies anyway.

I think they're all banned in French schools - all equally illegal. I don't quite understand it myself, but it's interesting either way. :)

Actually, the hypocrisy here is that a small cross may be worn in school, but the other things mentioned here may not.

Right because being modest, and covering your body up to ensure men are not t lusting after you is the same as sacrificing living, breathing things. The difference is quite clear, one is harmless, and the other is killing something.
The difference is hardly clear cut. The Islamic religion asserts men have no self-control so all women have to completely cover themselves, which only serves to encourage rampant sexism followed by fanatical Muslims.

Way to generalize.Nice try skippy.

Might as well not let christians in, because they could hate secularized schools, and bomb the biology classes for teach evolution,
I demand you show me where Christians have ever worn full-body coverings where not even the face is visible, much less any other part of the body.

Actually, the hypocrisy here is that a small cross may be worn in school, but the other things mentioned here may not.
Crucifix necklace != full body obscuring "religious" clothing that must always be worn.

The difference is hardly clear cut. The Islamic religion asserts men have no self-control so all women have to completely cover themselves, which only serves to encourage rampant sexism followed by fanatical Muslims.

Obviously you failed Islam 101, most scholars agree that the wearing of any garment, especially the niqaab is purely optional, based on the womens needs and desires. It is suggested because of what you said, men can't control their horny minds, and lust all the time, which proves to be fairly true, no?


Nice try skippy.

I believe you said that you couldn't differetiante betweens the 'fantatics', assuming that everyone that desires to be closer to Allah(swt) is some crazy fundamentalist that wants to destroy western civilization.


I demand you show me where Christians have ever worn full-body coverings where not even the face is visible, much less any other part of the body.

The post I referred to said that they shouldn't be worn in school. The niqaab is a form of religious expression. If one form isn't allowed, and those expressing are barred, then why should that apply to all religious expression of all religions?


Crucifix necklace != full body obscuring "religious" clothing that must always be worn.

Again, you fail, because 1) its not a must, and 2) when worn, its not ALWAYS, as you say.

The post I referred to said that they shouldn't be worn in school. The niqaab is a form of religious expression. If one form isn't allowed, and those expressing are barred, then why should that apply to all religious expression of all religions?


It's a public safety issue. It obscures the identity of people. Cover the hair, cover the feet, whatever, but hiding the face is a no-no.

It's a public safety issue. It obscures the identity of people. Cover the hair, cover the feet, whatever, but hiding the face is a no-no.

Or how about, if they need recognition, a female could ask in private to see their face?

Obviously you failed Islam 101, most scholars agree that the wearing of any garment, especially the niqaab is purely optional, based on the womens needs and desires. It is suggested because of what you said, men can't control their horny minds, and lust all the time, which proves to be fairly true, no?


Sometimes, sure. I'm a bit more optimistic than to take such a dim view of peoples' intentions that I'd require obscurity to counter-act it, though. Seems a bit extreme. :confused:

Sometimes, sure. I'm a bit more optimistic than to take such a dim view of peoples' intentions that I'd require obscurity to counter-act it, though. Seems a bit extreme. :confused:


Don't men think of sex, on avg, every like 5-10 sec

No, because that defeats the purpose of CCTV and also makes it impossible for the police to follow up on APBs.

Just recently a felon in england used the Niqab to evade law enforcement and flee the country.

So because one person abuses it means that you have to ruin it for the rest of the good population?

"oh no, that man shot a person with a gun, therefore no men must have guns!":rolleyes:

Or how about, if they need recognition, a female could ask in private to see their face?

No, because that defeats the purpose of CCTV and also makes it impossible for the police to follow up on APBs.

Just recently a felon in england used the Niqab to evade law enforcement and flee the country.

The niqaab is a form of religious expression. If one form isn't allowed, and those expressing are barred, then why should that apply to all religious expression of all religions?
Because I'm not going to play your silly little game of "omg, you oppose Islamic religion, fascist!"
Your appeals to emotion and faulty logic fall on deaf ears. No freedom is absolute - you can't shout "Fire!" in a theatre. Likewise, there is a nondismissible difference between Christian cross necklace and a full-body covering that you already admitted was not required by the faith. You can't have it both ways.

Don't men think of sex, on avg, every like 5-10 sec

I don't think so, or at least I hope not. :p

Even so, I still don't see why a woman should have to hide herself from everyone on Earth but her husband just because men tend to be attracted to women. It doesn't really add up, that's all.

So because one person abuses it means that you have to ruin it for the rest of the good population?

"oh no, that man shot a person with a gun, therefore no men must have guns!":rolleyes:Your unabated support of the niqab is ironic considering you said it was an option of the faith, not a requirement.

Is there a religious reason to wear it? No, you already admitted it isn't a requirement of the religion.
And wearing it creates a security situation, especially when the wearer refuses to reveal any part of their face.
Reasons to allow people to wear it in public? 0

So because one person abuses it means that you have to ruin it for the rest of the good population?

"oh no, that man shot a person with a gun, therefore no men must have guns!":rolleyes:

I must have missed the bit where guns were freely distributed.

And as I said, it completely defeats the point of CCTV, which is a great crime fighting tool. It's just a common sense law and order regulation.

Because I'm not going to play your silly little game of "omg, you oppose Islamic religion, fascist!"
Your appeals to emotion and faulty logic fall on deaf ears. No freedom is absolute - you can't shout "Fire!" in a theatre. Likewise, there is a nondismissible difference between Christian cross necklace and a full-body covering that you already admitted was not required by the faith. You can't have it both ways.

The cross isn't a forced thing either, and im sure that you can use it as a weapon, perhaps christians that refuse to take it off should be arrested for carrying a weapon? Im not appealing to emotions. I'm saying that if X girl wants to show her devotion to God, by wearing her niqaab, then it should be allowed. How many crimes have been committed by people wearing niqaabs at schools? I'd say none to very few, so why the need to ban them at school if there is no risk at hand? It all comes down to one thing, you all are scared of what you don't know.

Your unabated support of the niqab is ironic considering you said it was an option of the faith, not a requirement.

Is there a religious reason to wear it? No, you already admitted it isn't a requirement of the religion.
And wearing it creates a security situation, especially when the wearer refuses to reveal any part of their face.
Reasons to allow people to wear it in public? 0

There is a religious reason to wear it though. Like i said, its not required, because Islam believes in no compulsion in religion, BUT as I said, its a way for a female to show their devotion to Allah(swt). Just like christians don't have to be baptised, but do so to show their faith to Christ.

I must have missed the bit where guns were freely distributed.

And as I said, it completely defeats the point of CCTV, which is a great crime fighting tool. It's just a common sense law and order regulation.

CCTV is also an invasion of privacy.

CCTV is also an invasion of privacy.

No it isn't.

The cross isn't a forced thing either, and im sure that you can use it as a weapon, perhaps christians that refuse to take it off should be arrested for carrying a weapon? Im not appealing to emotions. I'm saying that if X girl wants to show her devotion to God, by wearing her niqaab, then it should be allowed. How many crimes have been committed by people wearing niqaabs at schools? I'd say none to very few, so why the need to ban them at school if there is no risk at hand? It all comes down to one thing, you all are scared of what you don't know.

Come on now, you're crossing into silly territory with this. The cross as what, garrote wire? :p Not comparable with a full facemask. Some people want it (not all Muslim garmets, I'm assuiming - just the completely obscuring one) banned in schools because they want to address their pupils, rather than their pupils' pupils, and nothing else. :p The CCTV argument wasn't made in the original article, so I'll leave that one to others, but there does seem to be some merit, I think, in wanting your judge or prosecutor, say, to be visible to you if you're on trial, etc. I don't think I'd want to be pleading my case in front of a group who I couldn't even see. If the full garmet isn't required, it might be more reasonable that they wear a reduced one in those settings, that's all.

No it isn't.

BS

BS

Stole the words outta my mouth.:)

BS

Oh, great argument. How exactly is CCTV in a public space an invasion of privacy? Everyone can be a looky-loo, so how does a camera for law enforcement make it different?

(Not to mention how effective CCTV has been in solving crimes in the UK. We should have cameras everywhere in public so there is a complete record of peoples behavior.).

Oh, great argument. How exactly is CCTV in a public space an invasion of privacy? Everyone can be a looky-loo, so how does a camera for law enforcement make it different?

(Not to mention how effective CCTV has been in solving crimes in the UK. We should have cameras everywhere in public so there is a complete record of peoples behavior.).

I don't think CCTV when used reasonably and legally is an invasion, but seeing as you can also evade it by other means, it's probably not the best argument against the head-to-toe scarf. The head-to-toe scarf is probably the only way you're going to be unseen in public during the whole day, but criminals will find other ways.

Oh, great argument. How exactly is CCTV in a public space an invasion of privacy? Everyone can be a looky-loo, so how does a camera for law enforcement make it different?

(Not to mention how effective CCTV has been in solving crimes in the UK. We should have cameras everywhere in public so there is a complete record of peoples behavior.).

I wish i could remember the link to the article talking about CCTV cameras and the worry of them being used to look inside houses and such(this was a recent thing, like within the week) and i believe it was frm the BBC. Not sure, but i'd rather have less saftey, more so than having less privacy.

I wish i could remember the link to the article talking about CCTV cameras and the worry of them being used to look inside houses and such(this was a recent thing, like within the week) and i believe it was frm the BBC. Not sure, but i'd rather have less saftey, more so than having less privacy.

I'm not talking about them being used to look inside houses. That is obviously wrong, and has nothing to do with what I am saying. But insofar as public spaces go - where you have a chance of being seen by an eyewitness anyway - their value is clear.

There is nothing wrong with demanding that those who choose to insert themselves in the public space are easily identifiable. I don't imagine you have a problem with car license plates, and those serve a similar function.

Anyway, privacy advocates missed the boat in the 60s when LBJ decided that all financial transactions should be open to the scrutiny of the IRS.

Alright, so posting on this topic is probably ill-advised, given that I'm unfamiliar with it, don't ordinarily concern myself with religious issues, and don't know much about England - but what the hell, here goes: :p

The "Niqab," or full-body scarf for Islamic women - you know, the one where you only see the eyes. I'm reading this article just now, which says, setting the scene:



http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=6263112

So naturally, the issue is pretty much foreign to me. I've never seen anyone walking around town in a head-to-toe Muslim garmet, and though it seems that only a small percentage wear one in England, it does happen.

So the question is: should wearing the massive garmet be discouraged in government or school settings? Is this a "real" issue, or is the newspaper just creating a tempest in a teapot here?

I'm all for freedom, of course, and wouldn't want peoples' clothing choices regulated by the government under ordinary circumstances, but there's still the practical concern of teachers standing in front of a group of eyeballs, rather than students, for example. :p I can sort of understand the worry, so I thought I'd ask around. ;) So, what's your opinion?

That's ridiculous. If anything, the use of the garment should be ENCOURAGED. The moral decay of the United Kingdom can only be reversed by a strong implementation of muslim values in public life. I also think requiring salat in public schools would not be unreasonable, to encourage faith and disciple. I agree that English teachers should not entertain thoughts of their students as anything but students, hence the necessity of the Niqab, to curb any sinful desires they might have, such as their chronic yen to take advantage of innocent young muslim women, steal their oil, refine it, and use it to propel their own automobiles.

The term 'freedom' is often thrown about as a positive thing, yet when freedom begins to erode an entire society, it becomes a dangerous, evil thing. It is good to hate evil, so is it so hard to think that hating freedom is the right thing to do?

Facial expressions are a key part of the communication process between people. In my opinion this alone is a solid reason to ban the wearing of the niqab in schools (whether by teachers or pupils). There are security issues also, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but facilitation of non-verbal communication takes precedence for me.

Headscarfs? I have no issue with them.

Facial expressions are a key part of the communication process between people. In my opinion this alone is a solid reason to ban the wearing of the niqab in schools (whether by teachers or pupils). There are security issues also, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but facilitation of non-verbal communication takes precedence for me.

Headscarfs? I have no issue with them.

That's also pretty important, socially. We should all be free to abstain from social situations, or act in an abrasive manner if that's our way, but to block others from any sight of you while in schools or courtrooms seems perhaps a bit too antisocial for those particular environments. Good point.

I wish i could remember the link to the article talking about CCTV cameras and the worry of them being used to look inside houses and such(this was a recent thing, like within the week) and i believe it was frm the BBC. Not sure, but i'd rather have less saftey, more so than having less privacy.

A week ago? Google maps? Not CCTV, I don't think, but rather a satellite - not that it doesn't irk me a little when they're looking in windows.

i wouldn't class schools as strictly government buildings though. veils and masks ought to get the same treatment as bike helmets i reckon, visitors don't get to wear them and they can just accept that or not enter sensitive areas. but there is no reason why employees or students should not be allowed veils, these people are already identifiable and trusted, what they wear should not be an issue.

Isn't that one of the problems, that hiding the face makes them nearly unidentifiable?

The cross isn't a forced thing either, and im sure that you can use it as a weapon,
Yeah, if you're Riddick.

How many crimes have been committed by people wearing niqaabs at schools?
Irrelevant.
I'd say none to very few,[/quote[
Oh come on, you even admit that the answer could be positive?

[quote] so why the need to ban them at school if there is no risk at hand?
Security reasons, the end.

It all comes down to one thing, you all are scared of what you don't know.Oh yes, there couldn't possibly be legitimate concerns :rolleyes:

I always feel they're just sith lords in disguise. And yes, I do hum the Star Wars music when I see them. Not only do they look ridiculous, but, to western pre-suppositions, they endorse mysogyny.

On the issue...

The niqaab is, of course - officially at least - meant to protect women from 'The Predator that is Man'. In other words, every woman wearing a niqaab is, in effect, saying she considers every man she comes across to be a potential rapist who should stay the hell away from her. A person who cannot control himself once he sees a bit of naked skin.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd feel rather uncomfortable with such an accusation right before my eyes.

Of course...

The 'Dress' in question is not mandated in mainstream Islam any more than wearing chaste and covering grey wool clothes scratching like mad is required in mainstream christianity. In the majority of muslim nations, the niqaab is not required - this includes, among other places, Iran. In many muslim nations, women wearing it are considered outright creepy, and they're almost always disconnected from the society around them, keeping to themselves, not socialising at all.

It is therefore rather more than a means to 'Protect' women - it's a tool of social engineering, a means to sever the connection women have to the society at large, a means to keep them isolated and weak.

Arguing about 'Other types of clothing/ religious symbols are allowed too, why not this?!' completely misses the point. It isn't about whether it's just another fashion trend or a symbol for another religion. It's about the niqaab's role as a tool for social engineering. Whether the women wearing it approve of it or not is quite irrelevant for this - just because there happen to be BDSM enthusiasts happily embracing a Gorean lifestyle doesn't mean that we should have it featured in our schools, encouraging - and implicitly requiring - women to make this choice. And the same reasoning applies to the niqaab.

Of course, schools are themselves tools for social engineering. But well... What can I say? I like my schools to promote a society based on equality and liberty. Not on gender-based segregation and - lets be honest here - oppression.

And therefore...

No to niqaabs in school.

I don't buy any of this talk that Muslim women who wear the head dress are somehow anti-social and keep to themselves. In fact if I were to use my high school education as an example, the only religious people who were divisive and anti-social were the 'Jesus freaks' crowd who all kept to themselves and thought of themselves as morally superior, it was weird.

I don't buy any of this talk that Muslim women who wear the head dress are somehow anti-social and keep to themselves. In fact if I were to use my high school education as an example, the only religious people who were divisive and anti-social were the 'Jesus freaks' crowd who all kept to themselves and thought of themselves as morally superior, it was weird.

Percentagewise, how many gils in niqabs frequent your school?

Does any one remember this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6621873.stm) story? People certainly shouldn't be allowed to cover their faces when they need to use a photo ID.

It worked damn well against the BUF

The ban on political uniforms is the most depressing law in Britain.

Why can't we have political uniforms! They look ace, and add a certain je ne sais quois to politics.

In fact, the law isn't - strictly speaking - enforced - look at the OMRLP and see if they don't wear a uniform... bah. I demand the right to wear a uniform and have a party militia! :(

Err well my feelings are essentially that the more we ban things like the Niqab, the closer we get to totalitarianism.

Yeah, fine, it 'hurts integration', but then that's everyone's choice, whether to integrate or not. The British people are supposed to be a tolerant people, not a bunch of ignorant drones, banning anything to do with Islam.

Let it go. Eventually, people are going to give it up if and when they are happy to integrate into Britain.

If you're really scared of Muslim extremism, the worst thing to do would be to piss off the Muslim community by banning their women from wearing modest clothing, no?

If you're really scared of Muslim extremism, the worst thing to do would be to piss off the Muslim community by banning their women from wearing modest clothing, no?

By which you mean the full-body obscuring clothing that prevents them from being identified at all and isn't required by the religion? :rolleyes:
Banning them from covering their face at all times is hardly forcing them to wear miniskirts and bikini tops.

The funny thing was that those recruiters, mostly male, were then disappointed to find that the women, taking chasteness to the full, stopped talking to those very recruiters leaving them as frustrated, if not more so, than they already were.

You know what they say: Fate's a cruel bitch.

By which you mean the full-body obscuring clothing that prevents them from being identified at all and isn't required by the religion? :rolleyes:
Really depends on your reading of it, and to be honest, for the small amount of people who actually wear niqabs, the outcry from the general muslim community would take the piss royally, so there's no point in doing it.
Banning them from covering their face at all times is hardly forcing them to wear miniskirts and bikini tops.
Surprising as this may sound, I actually know this full-well.

But asking people to remove any item of clothing when that's clearly not what they want is always going to cause offence.

Facial and head coverings are not articles of clothing.

Facial and head coverings are not articles of clothing.

So hats aren't articles of clothing?

They're going to be pissed at the clothing stores when you tell them that, all these years they've been selling the wrong shit. :p

Facial and head coverings are not articles of clothing.
http://pleatedstructures.com/other/graphics/flexible_straws.jpg

Clutch, The_pantless_hero, clutch!

So hats aren't articles of clothing?
Are belts? earrings?

Are belts?
Yes.
earrings?
No, they're accessories.

No. Prohibiting it is a disgusting infringement on people's religious rights. As long as they aren't forced to wear it, it's their choice.

cloth·ing (klng)
n.
1. Clothes considered as a group; wearing apparel.
2. A covering.

I'd say a belt can easily fall under the definition of something that covers part of the body.

That is so absurd it makes my argument for me.

Are belts? earrings?

cloth·ing (klng)
n.
1. Clothes considered as a group; wearing apparel.
2. A covering.

I'd say a belt can easily fall under the definition of something that covers part of the body.

The earring analogy is just so dumb I'm staying away from it.

No. Prohibiting it is a disgusting infringement on people's religious rights. As long as they aren't forced to wear it, it's their choice.

No more than any other restriction upon clothing in a professional context. If a business elects not to permit its employees to ape Darth Vader, said muslims are more than able to either find another job, or, for that matter, deal with it. If they find themselves unable to reconcile themselves to such a restriction, I would happily have the state pay for one way air fare to the middle east.

How so?

What part of the body does the belt cover?

That is so absurd it makes my argument for me.

How so?

What part of the body does the belt cover?

Well I usually wear them around the waist.

Edit: To end this silly and pointless aside I direct you to the dictionary, more specifically the part where it defines a belt as an item of clothing.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/belt

Because in Kuwait women do not go into banks, drive, or do other such activities that would imply that they had some form of legal identity separate from that of their husband/father/son. Here (the west) they do these things because they are legally the equal of men.

Actually, part of that isn't true. Women do drive in Kuwait. When I was there in 2003 and 2004 I saw quite a few female drivers. However, the problem is that they're not allowed to make eye contact with male drivers, so they just merge without looking, lest they accidentally lock eyes. Scary when you're in the lane they're merging into.

I'm a big fan of the concept of laïcité (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laicite). In France it does lead to the somewhat amusing irony that for Muslim students to wear the hijab or niqab they have to go to a private school, which in France are overwhelmingly Catholic. I attended a Catholic university in France last year and we had several students from the Middle East who wore hijabs around school. Of course, you wouldn't have known it was a Catholic school except for the occasional Catholic priest wandering around campus.

Actually, part of that isn't true. Women do drive in Kuwait. When I was there in 2003 and 2004 I saw quite a few female drivers. However, the problem is that they're not allowed to make eye contact with male drivers, so they just merge without looking, lest they accidentally lock eyes. Scary when you're in the lane they're merging into.

Natural selection in action. :p

Well I usually wear them around the waist.

So the belt covers a 1-2 inch strip of waist?

So the belt covers a 1-2 inch strip of waist?

Depending on how thick the belt is, yeah.

I notice you disregarded the second part of the post though.

The right to wear a niqab should not be infringed upon.

That being said... If an individuals religious and (more importantly) cultural values are such that she would want to wear a niqab, she and her family are obviously not well suited to acclimatising to life in the West and any country's immigration authority would be well within its' right to refuse them entry or landed status on those grounds.

Discouraged, yes. Not banned, but discouraged.

Discouraged, yes. Not banned, but discouraged.

Should wearing cross necklaces be discouraged? What about turbans?

Should wearing cross necklaces be discouraged? What about turbans?

Yes.

As long as the niqab does not cause an actual issue [i.e., not hearing the people speak in the court case], no bans, please.

Oh, I've no doubt that some do want to wear them. The question I have is why do they want to wear them? And why would it make a difference to them not to wear them?

Why do billions of women not walk around shirtless even when it is warm enough out to not matter (for example in the park where guys are playing football shirtless or something ... where the setting would not be restrictive like work)

Because it is a modesty thing (hell in the USA clothing restrictions like that are still legally enforced ...)

I personally think it is a sign over overwhelming societal patriarchy and I would like to see them over come that

BUT until they get to that point from what I have heard it described it is uncomfortable for many of them to not wear it even if there is no male activly enforcing that dress

Freedom of religion and belief is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. It doesn't matter if something is part of a mainstream religion or not...even if only YOU believe it to be part of your system of beliefs, it is protected. No, that doesn't mean you get to sacrifice humans in the name of your religion. But it does mean that unless there is a pressing threat to public safety, you are allowed to express your beliefs, and follow your religion.

So, here, the onus is on those who would refuse a woman the right to wear the niqab, to show how wearing it would pose a threat to public safety.

Frankly, it's none of anyone's business why they want to wear it. They don't have to justify themselves to you.

Freedom of religion and belief is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. It doesn't matter if something is part of a mainstream religion or not...even if only YOU believe it to be part of your system of beliefs, it is protected. No, that doesn't mean you get to sacrifice humans in the name of your religion. But it does mean that unless there is a pressing threat to public safety, you are allowed to express your beliefs, and follow your religion.

So, here, the onus is on those who would refuse a woman the right to wear the niqab, to show how wearing it would pose a threat to public safety.

Frankly, it's none of anyone's business why they want to wear it. They don't have to justify themselves to you.

I don't think anyone's advocating the elimination of freedom to dress oneself in whatever garb they want - it's more the specific instances where society generally asks you to be forthright about your identity - school, courtrooms, banks and some stores, etc.

Makes me sort of curious what would happen if a mank manager simply posted a sign that read "no masks" on the front doors.

Percentagewise, how many gils in niqabs frequent your school?

Maybe 3 or 4, so that would be a tiny percentage, below 0.1%.

Why would I discourage anybody from wearing what they want to wear?

If they need to be identified they can reveal their face, that's not forbidden by Islam. So what's the big deal?

Yes, but it should be discouraged by Muslims. Discouragement from outsiders will only be seen as persecution.

Yes, but it should be discouraged by Muslims. Discouragement from outsiders will only be seen as persecution.

I'd hope that all Muslims would end its use. It would do the Muslim man good to know that finding women attractive isn't a sin. They can look at a woman's body without suffering some horrible fate. Really.

I'd hope that all Muslims would end its use. It would do the Muslim man good to know that finding women attractive isn't a sin. They can look at a woman's body without suffering some horrible fate. Really.

Isn't it weird that a religion that's so afraid of sex has the whole fifty virgins thing for an afterlife?

Isn't it weird that a religion that's so afraid of sex has the whole fifty virgins thing for an afterlife?

Contradictions in religion are hardly anything new.

I've always wondered what the Muslim woman gets in the afterlife. I doubt she gets fifty virgin men after all. :p

Contradictions in religion are hardly anything new.

I've always wondered what the Muslim woman gets in the afterlife. I doubt she gets fifty virgin men after all. :p
probably not. then again, from what i hear, most women wouldn't even want one virgin man... :p

Again, we can only talk from our own experiences in life, has anyone here ever had black dressed Muslim women trying to force their beliefs on you with a stick? It certainly hasn't happened to me ever. On the other hand I have been lectured many a time by 'Jesus freaks' over zealous people who assume they are morally superior, and that their opinions on abortion and other issues are sanctioned by God himself. Again, if I am to use my own life experiences, Christian fundies are the real problem.

Because it is a modesty thing (hell in the USA clothing restrictions like that are still legally enforced ...)

I personally think it is a sign over overwhelming societal patriarchy and I would like to see them over come that



I'm getting weary of hearing Muslim women trot out the "modesty" rationale for their head coverings. If she is being modest by covering her head, the logical inverse is that women who don't cover their heads are all sluts.

Contradictions in religion are hardly anything new.

I've always wondered what the Muslim woman gets in the afterlife. I doubt she gets fifty virgin men after all. :p

Someone sent that question in to slate.com once, which researched it and did a column on it. You can probably guess the answer, though. ;)

Yep. They get their husband. Forever. :p

Anticlimactic, I know.

I'm getting weary of hearing Muslim women trot out the "modesty" rationale for their head coverings. If she is being modest by covering her head, the logical inverse is that women who don't cover their heads are all sluts.

It's not just a logical implication that less-modest women and non-Muslims are "sluts," to use the word - it's been said explicitly by some Muslim preachers (Imams, I believe).

Someone sent that question in to slate.com once, which researched it and did a column on it. You can probably guess the answer, though. ;)

Yep. They get their husband. Forever. :p

Anticlimactic, I know.

How exciting for her.

I would personally say discourage it because the whole orthodox muslim thing infringes on a women's rights...However it is not my place to Judge another persons religion even if I disagree with it. It should not be discouraged because it's a religious thing and there should be freedom of Religion.