NationStates Jolt Archive

A hot topic for debate in Switzlerland right now is the whole fiasco concerning Calmy-Rey, who is head of the Department of Foreign Affairs (the foreign minister) and President of the Swiss confederation during 2007, the second female President Switzerland has ever had, the first was actually Jewish too. Not so bad for a country that gave the right to vote to women in the 70's and only actually got applied to every canton in the 1990's ;)

(Calmy-Rey with head covering in Iran)

http://www.20min.ch/images/content/1/4/9/14962275/17/topelement.jpg
(Calmy-Rey with head covering in Iran)
The debate is that she met with Iranian President Machmud Achmadinedschad and wore a head scarf while doing so. First it was about whether she did it free-wilingly, which she in fact did. Then the debate became about whether or not it was the right thing to do. The article here shows Merkel meeting in Saudi Arabia with King Abdullah, without a head scarf and then Achmadinedschad in Venzeuala with Chavez, without a tie, for comparisons.

http://www.20min.ch/images/content/1/4/9/14962275/17/1.jpg
(Merkel with King Abdullah, no head covering)

http://www.20min.ch/images/content/1/4/9/14962275/17/2.JPG
(Achmadinedschad with Chavez, no tie)

A few things are problematic here. The first is that, as Merkel is a right wing christian democrat and Calmy-Rey is a left wing socail democrat, it sparks a debate about which is the correct way to deal with be "proper and correct" when dealing with these extremists. Many people say Merkel was correct in not stooping down out of "cultural respect", but others say Calmy-Rey was correct for, in her own words, "observing protocol".

(SVP Campaign)

The SVP started a new campaign against her with a poster showing her in Iran, with a headscarf sitting under a picture of Ayatollah Khomeini, and then underneath it has big green letters that say, "that's why SVP", or..."therefore, SVP" "Darum SVP".

The SVP have been heavily critical of Calmy-Rey's approach to Iran, saying that "many people have the feeling that she campaigns for everyone and everything, simpy not for Switzerland."

http://www.20min.ch/images/content/1/5/6/15608284/40/1.jpg
(SVP campaign poster)

The SVP asks. "Who will stop this woman?"

Their campaign is focusing on the neutrality of Switzerland in regards to dealing with Islam, and setting a bad example of how to deal with what they view are cultural issues that don't have to be tolerated and shouldn't be encouraged.

(Leftist Criticism)

However, the SVP is not alone in critizing Calmy-Rey for her actions.

For example, Swiss Socialist MP Maria Roth-Bernasconi said it was "irritating that she had angered feminists in Iran".

The move also drew attacks from Leftists and Woman Rights supporters, notably Iranian refugee to Switzerland, Zahra Erfani.

Erfani is a member of the Social Democrats, the same party as Calmy-Rey, and has been, if possible, and even more vocal critic of Calmy-Rey than the SVP.

Erfani is part of the Iranian Union of Refugees and worked to found to the Progressive Women Organization.

She says (about Calmy-Rey wearing a headscarf) that is a major set back for women in Iran and works AGAISNTS womens rights in Iran, by showing that "we" support what they are doing and believe it is acceptable. She also said it was a "smack in the face" to all the exiled Iranians who left Iran for freedom. She says that the headscarf in Iran is a symbol for the degregation and lower status of women and submission to the Iranian man and the strongly male dominated society of Iran.

She is waiting for an apology from Calmy-Rey or her department.

(More on Calmy-Rey)Calmy-Rey also prompted controversy by signing a multi-billion dollar natural gas deal with Iran[3]. The United States had complained that Switzerland was sending the wrong message when Tehran was subject to UN sanctions. Both the Israeli government and US-based Jewish groups criticised the deal

http://www.20min.ch/tools/suchen/story/14962275
http://www.20min.ch/news/schweiz/story/15608284
http://www.20min.ch/news/schweiz/story/19326223

She is respecting their customs when she is in their country. Would we not want and expect the Muslims to do the same in the west? (Regardless of whether they actually do or not)

She is respecting their customs when she is in their country. Would we not want and expect the Muslims to do the same in the west? (Regardless of whether they actually do or not)
The question is do you respect what may be fundementally wrong.

And the statement by some leftists and feminists is that it's a HUGE setback for anyone campaigning for women's freedom in Iran.

When in Rome...

When you enter someone else's territory/country, you show respect for the people living there who have chosen to host you. To me, that means following protocol. Granted, if it really goes against your beliefs, then make a statement if you wish...just realise that the best statement would be not to go in the first place.

There is nothing inherent in the head covering that makes it oppressive. I don't see a problem. For example, if you come into Cree territory, expect to be given tobacco if you're sharing knowledge...tossing the tobacco away in horror because you hate the tobacco industry makes no sense.

The question is do you respect what may be fundementally wrong.

And the statement by some leftists and feminists is that it's a HUGE setback for anyone campaigning for women's freedom in Iran.

Slavery is fundamentally wrong. Exploiting children is fundamentally wrong. If you were asked to participate in these activities, it would be wrong for you to do so just because you were in an area where these things are seen as ok.

I do not see a similar argument to be made for the head covering. It can be a symbol of oppression but it is not universally so, and it is not fundamentally wrong to wear it.

I'm not comfortable with the notion, or basis, of the hijab/burkha. It strikes me, much like many such tenets of religious belief, as being so much anachronistic twaddle.

However, I am of the opinion that one ought to wear it when in Islamic countries, or buildings, where it is obligatory.

The question is do you respect what may be fundementally wrong.

And the statement by some leftists and feminists is that it's a HUGE setback for anyone campaigning for women's freedom in Iran.


Whether it's right or not, if she choses to respect or pander to them, it's still her choice. The burden of being a leader is making choices, and, good or bad, she has already made it. Personally, I am against mandatory Hijab wearing, but if she chooses to wear it, I don't see what the big deal is.

It's one thing to be against symbols of the opression of women, it's another thing for Merkel to do her best to reach out to Iran in a time when Iran is closer than ever to overturning the Ayatollah's crap regime because of long-term economic downturn and Ahmedenijad's absolutely incompetance in handling his own "party" within government.

Several religions require their female followers to shave/cover their heads in some manner. I don't see what the big deal is with the practice in Islam in particular. It's the Islamic fundamentalists (and, really, the fundamentalists of every religion) that make it seem bad.

Several religions require their female followers to shave/cover their heads in some manner. I don't see what the big deal is with the practice in Islam in particular. It's the Islamic fundamentalists (and, really, the fundamentalists of every religion) that make it seem bad.

Name them.

Actually, name the religion that requires a shaved head as well, I'm intruiged.

Slavery is fundamentally wrong. Exploiting children is fundamentally wrong. If you were asked to participate in these activities, it would be wrong for you to do so just because you were in an area where these things are seen as ok.

I do not see a similar argument to be made for the head covering. It can be a symbol of oppression but it is not universally so, and it is not fundamentally wrong to wear it.

It may not be a symbol of oppression in general, but it is for Iranian women who've been beaten by the police for showing too much hair.

EDIT: That said, I think the Swiss are blowing this out of proportion.

When in Rome...

When you enter someone else's territory/country, you show respect for the people living there who have chosen to host you. To me, that means following protocol. Granted, if it really goes against your beliefs, then make a statement if you wish...just realise that the best statement would be not to go in the first place.

There is nothing inherent in the head covering that makes it oppressive. I don't see a problem. For example, if you come into Cree territory, expect to be given tobacco if you're sharing knowledge...tossing the tobacco away in horror because you hate the tobacco industry makes no sense.
By definition, wouldn't it be oppressive if some women don't want to wear and are campaigning for the freedom to dress without it, yet are forced to because the extreme religous conservative government does not wish to go against their strict interpretations of Islam?

It may not be a symbol of oppression in general, but it is for Iranian women who've been beaten by the police for showing too much hair.
Also what I was saying in this post http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13627986&postcount=12

By definition, wouldn't it be oppressive if some women don't want to wear and are campaigning for the freedom to dress without it, yet are forced to because the extreme religous conservative government does not wish to go against their strict interpretations of Islam?

Was she forced to wear it? No.

Would she be if she lived there or intended to stay? Yes.

It's a toss up, for sure. You can make a statment and not wear it. You can wear it. Either way, it was her choice, and I don't believe that either choice was fundamentally wrong.

What if she were a Muslim woman who wore the headscarf normally as it was? Would that be supporting oppression too?

I believe you can show repect to your host nation AND speak out about human rights abuses without being a hypocrite.

When in Rome...

When you enter someone else's territory/country, you show respect for the people living there who have chosen to host you. To me, that means following protocol. Granted, if it really goes against your beliefs, then make a statement if you wish...just realise that the best statement would be not to go in the first place.

There is nothing inherent in the head covering that makes it oppressive. I don't see a problem. For example, if you come into Cree territory, expect to be given tobacco if you're sharing knowledge...tossing the tobacco away in horror because you hate the tobacco industry makes no sense.

Precisely. When as a teen I visited some of my Asian friends' homes, I was expected to leave my shoes at the door along with the family members.

When you enter someone's country as a guest, you do as they expect their own people to do, within reason. It was not unreasonable for her to wear a head scarf, any more than it would be unreasonable to be expected to take your hat off when you enter a church or to be expected not to show up there in shorts and a bikini top.

Name them.

Actually, name the religion that requires a shaved head as well, I'm intruiged.

Orthodox Judaism strongly encourages its women to wear head-coverings, including wigs--those who wear wigs tend to shave their heads to make wearing the wig easier. Some branches of Christianity also encourage head-coverings, but I'm not as familiar with Christianity so I can't speak specifically there.

Several religions require their female followers to shave/cover their heads in some manner. I don't see what the big deal is with the practice in Islam in particular. It's the Islamic fundamentalists (and, really, the fundamentalists of every religion) that make it seem bad.

Indeed. The Catholic Church in Italy would be a good example of requiring some sort of headcovering, as would Orthodox Judaism (shaving the head and wearing a wig, or covering the hair with a wig).

Indeed. The Catholic Church in Italy would be a good example.

As well as Mennonites and Hutterites...their women wear head coverings too, though do not fully cover their hair.

Don't female buddhists shave their heads? All the ones here in the Buddhist temples/whatever do.

Was she forced to wear it? No.

Would she be if she lived there or intended to stay? Yes.

It's a toss up, for sure. You can make a statment and not wear it. You can wear it. Either way, it was her choice, and I don't believe that either choice was fundamentally wrong.

What if she were a Muslim woman who wore the headscarf normally as it was? Would that be supporting oppression too?

I believe you can show repect to your host nation AND speak out about human rights abuses without being a hypocrite.
But by wearing it she was showing that she was ok with a rule that forces Iranian women to wear it, whether they like it or not. Surely that rule is oppressive. Since oppressive by definition means not allowing for their freedom of choice. Think, for example, of how Iranian women who are fighting for freedom, like the one I quoted above, took this gesture as...

Orthodox Judaism strongly encourages its women to wear head-coverings, including wigs--those who wear wigs tend to shave their heads to make wearing the wig easier. Some branches of Christianity also encourage head-coverings, but I'm not as familiar with Christianity so I can't speak specifically there.

Encouragement, however strong, is not outright obligation.

But by wearing it she was showing that she was ok with a rule that forces Iranian women to wear it, whether they like it or not. Surely that rule is oppressive. Since oppressive by definition means not allowing for their freedom of choice. Think, for example, of how Iranian women who are fighting for freedom, like the one I quoted above, took this gesture as...

...or she was showing respect to the leader of another culture so they could get some political work done without having to overcome having insulted him by not doing so?

Would we accept an ambassador coming to a state dinner stark naked because in his country, clothes are seen as oppressive?

Sometimes, adhering to the cultural expectations as a sign of respect is that and nothing more.

But by wearing it she was showing that she was ok with a rule that forces Iranian women to wear it, whether they like it or not.
That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that she is respecting a particular version of Islam that says a woman should wear the head covering as a sign of respect because to do otherwise would completely undermine the work she had come there to do. Once again, what if she was a Muslim woman who already wore the head covering?



Surely that rule is oppressive. Since oppressive by definition means not allowing for their freedom of choice. Think, for example, of how Iranian women who are fighting for freedom, like the one I quoted above, took this gesture as...
Hopefully they see it as an exercise of her freedom of choice, something they are fighting for.

Hmm. Don't know how I feel about this one -- on the one hand, if I was on a diplomatic mission I would want to avoid being impolite to anybody as it would get in the way of my mission. If I wasn't religious I wouldn't give a dang personally about wearing a headscarf or not, so I might well wear one out of politeness.

On the other hand, Iranian women have to wear the veil by law, whether they want to or not. As a representative of my country's values, I would want to avoid condoning that kind of state-enforced religious rule, so I would avoid wearing the headscarf.

So I suppose her wearing the headscarf indicated that it was more important to her to accomplish diplomatic goals than to make a statement. Which isn't necessarily bad, maybe she felt that she could serve Switzerland more effectively by talking softly (in public) and carrying a big stick (in private).

...or she was showing respect to the leader of another culture so they could get some political work done without having to overcome having insulted him by not doing so?

Would we accept an ambassador coming to a state dinner stark naked because in his country, clothes are seen as oppressive?

Sometimes, adhering to the cultural expectations as a sign of respect is that and nothing more.

Agreed, however, I'd quite like to send John Prescott stark bollock naked to India as an ambassador.

If she were a real socialist, she wouldn't be wearing it. If she's one of those namby-pamby socialists, who fail to realise that respecting Islamic patriarchal traditions is incompatible with socialism, then she probably would.

Either way, she's an embarrassment.

But by wearing it she was showing that she was ok with a rule that forces Iranian women to wear it, whether they like it or not. Surely that rule is oppressive. Since oppressive by definition means not allowing for their freedom of choice. Think, for example, of how Iranian women who are fighting for freedom, like the one I quoted above, took this gesture as...
The reason she was there was to establish trade relations with Iran, which requires a certain amount of deliberate flattery and brown-nosing. It seems strange that the criticism is one of "How could she wear that?" rather than "Why was she there at all?" if the public is so vocal about the issue of Womens' Rights in Iran.

...or she was showing respect to the leader of another culture so they could get some political work done without having to overcome having insulted him by not doing so?[
That was already proven false...when Merkel went to Saudi Arabia and had no problems with the King....and God knows if there is one country more backwards than Iran, it's Saudi-Arabia.
Would we accept an ambassador coming to a state dinner stark naked because in his country, clothes are seen as oppressive?
Slippery slope. It's not the same and you know it.
Sometimes, adhering to the cultural expectations as a sign of respect is that and nothing more.
Indeed. But for us who are not cultural relativists, adhering to cultural expecatations which are oppressive and or wrong (when enforced..it's a totally different story if someone simply chooses to cover their head), is not the correct action.

Encouragement, however strong, is not outright obligation.

It depends on how Orthodox you are. One friend of the family is Orthodox but not strictly so (her words, not mine), so she just wears a scarf. The other is very strict about it and she has told me that it's required. So I don't know the official rules, but I'd hazard it's pretty close to the rules of Islam, considering that not all Islamic women wear head-coverings either.

Encouragement, however strong, is not outright obligation.

Also...it should be known that no government enforces this...thus if the women really didn't want to, she could convert and simply leave the religion or practice a more reformed interpretation of Judaism. A luxury that Iranian women for example, wouldn't have.

Indeed. But for us who are not cultural relativists,
You mean those of you who are cultural imperialists...aren't you one of the ones who think that people should come to your country and do as you do?

It only makes sense that you should afford others the same level of respect when entering their territory.

adhering to cultural expecatations which are oppressive and or wrong (when enforced..it's a totally different story if someone simply chooses to cover their head), is not the correct action.

Laws against nudity exist in many parts of the West...this is an enforced social norm. Is it then supporting oppression when you choose to wear clothes when visiting as a political representative from abroad? I'm not talking slippery slope, I'm asking your opinion.

The reason she was there was to establish trade relations with Iran, which requires a certain amount of deliberate flattery and brown-nosing. It seems strange that the criticism is one of "How could she wear that?" rather than "Why was she there at all?" if the public is so vocal about the issue of Womens' Rights in Iran.

Agreed. The displeasure of the people should be directed at their government as a whole, rather than this woman in particular. The wearing or not wearing of a head covering is nothing beside forging trade ties with a nation. A small statement (not wearing the head covering) is absolutely meaningless next to the positive encouragement of hard cash.

Laws against nudity exist in many parts of the West...this is an enforced social norm. Is it then supporting oppression to refuse to wear clothes when visiting as a political representative from abroad?
You'd certainly find many in the West who'd say yes. Why are we so afraid of genitalia anyway? It's not like they're a deformity or disease someone might catch.

The reason she was there was to establish trade relations with Iran, which requires a certain amount of deliberate flattery and brown-nosing. It seems strange that the criticism is one of "How could she wear that?" rather than "Why was she there at all?" if the public is so vocal about the issue of Womens' Rights in Iran.
She was there for very controversial trade deal:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/30/europe/EU-GEN-Switzerland-Iran-Deal.php

You'd certainly find many in the West who'd say yes. Why are we so afraid of genitalia anyway? It's not like they're a deformity or disease someone might catch.

Check my edit...it made no sense the way it was quoted (and originally posted) :D

You mean those of you who are cultural imperialists...aren't you one of the ones who think that people should come to your country and do as you do?
Yes, as integration has always (well..atleast until recently) be the goal of our immigration services.
It only makes sense that you should afford others the same level of respect when entering their territory.
Not if when respecting their customs you are doing something that is supporting oppression. Let's say country A called for women to wear a complete face covering, but did not, obviously have the same restrictions on men. That is opression. Now let's say the diplomat went to visit....and she wore a complete face covering...that shows she accepts and is ok with that opression.

Laws against nudity exist in many parts of the West...this is an enforced social norm. Is it then supporting oppression when you choose to wear clothes when visiting as a political representative from abroad? I'm not talking slippery slope, I'm asking your opinion. No because clothing is no opression and laws against nudity also exist for both males and females...granted they are slightly different but not everywhere.

Free will.

Are you wearing a head covering because you wish to or are you wearing a head covering because you are forced to? If a woman wishes not to wear head covering she should not be forced.

That being said, the fact that you are on business far larger than your own interests also dictates how ones acts and dresses.

And THAT being said, one should not do any kind of business of repressive governments that beat women into submission.

It seems to me that leftists hide behind the "it's their culture" argument when they do business with Islamic fundamentalists. Suddenly women's rights and gay rights no longer seem to matter if it is your "culture" to repress and punish those types of people.

Dare I say that humanity would have never seen the gains in human rights if people actually believed such stupidity. Women voting? Blacks voting? End slavery? Repress the Jews? All of these things would fall under "cultural norms" if viewed through such eyes.

I see no problem with it. And I think people who decide to spout the idea that she's choosing to oppress women are just completely uninformed about that stuff in that world. And I quite happily say that knowing that one of the strongest feminists I know is a muslim woman who chooses to wear the headscarf in the western world (And choose not to back in the Muslim world). She's not being oppressed, not by a long shot, never was, and I don't see how it's oppression in that way. A lot of women, unless we're talking Afganistan or Saudi Arabia (Let's face it, they are/were really bad) tend to activly go with the choice to wear the headscarf. The ones who don't fall into one of two categories, those who have some ties to Europe or the west (through living here, parents, family, so on), and those who would do anything just to be different anyway (Which, again let's face it, is a stage in life everyone goes through at least a little in their teen years). Take Jordan as a counter example, where they're freely alowed to do as they wish, and yet starting in the 1980s and quite strong now, liberal young muslim women activly choose to wear the headscarf, and that's more the norm then women of the same age group in the US wearing jeans.

Do i think they should be alowed to choose? I do. Do I think that every women in Iran wants to stop wearing it? Not by a long shot. And on top of that, I understand the real issue with women's right in Iran right now has nothing to do with the ability to choose not to wear the headscarf, it has to do with how, outside of the cities like Tehran, the tribal mentality still exists, and they force (Illegally at that, even in Iran) even worse upon the women, and corruption in the local police forces is so rampant that they get away with it. Claim Iran is a totalitarian dictatorship if you want, or all-encompasing government, but if it were (Or just actually any good at it) then women in Iran would have a lot more freedom.

When in Rome...

When you enter someone else's territory/country, you show respect for the people living there who have chosen to host you. To me, that means following protocol. Granted, if it really goes against your beliefs, then make a statement if you wish...just realise that the best statement would be not to go in the first place.
In that case, should the same apply to muslim women visiting western countries (Or even those living here)? Should they be expected to take off headscarves out of respect for the dominant culture of their hosts?

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13628087']In that case, should the same apply to muslim women visiting western countries (Or even those living here)? Should they be expected to take off headscarves out of respect for the dominant culture of their hosts?

Do you recall this story:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/florida.license.veil/

So yes, they can be expected to take off the headscarf here in specific circumstances.

Funny enough, I don't think she'll ever win because in the Middle East...

DRIVER'S ID RULES IN MUSLIM NATIONS

Saudi Arabia: Women aren't allowed to drive
Iran: Women wear a traditional chador, which does not cover the face.
Egypt: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
United Arab Emirates: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Oman: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Kuwait: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Qatar: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Bahrain: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Jordan: Women can drive if their faces are covered but do not cover their face in I.D. pictures

Check my edit...it made no sense the way it was quoted (and originally posted) :D
Gotcha. Okay, not so many then. :)

Mind you, I wouldn't fault someone for adhereing to their own national costume when on a diplomatic mission. It'd be a little weird, granted, but perfectly within the bounds of cultural exchange.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13628087']In that case, should the same apply to muslim women visiting western countries (Or even those living here)? Should they be expected to take off headscarves out of respect for the dominant culture of their hosts?

Except it's not culturally expected for women to not cover their heads, it's just not an issue either way.

Actually, it is an issue in most European, and some North American, churches where women must cover their heads to enter.

So no, not only is your argument inaccurate, but it could be taken another way to say women in the west should cover their heads more.

Dominant western culture is that, outside of certian situations, it's the woman's choice, and everyone normally respects that. Untill the idiots come by and scream about it forgetting the choice aspect over here. Your argument would be the same if I asked you of our friend the Iranian president there, should wear a ball cap cocked to one side, with no shirt and a pair of short-jeans down around his knees showing his shiny gold-looking boxers while he blasts music by 50 cent as a sign of respect to a predominant western cultural ideal? Of course he shouldn't (I hope we can agree how hilarious it would be though if he did), in fact our cultural ideals would be pretty pissed off if he did, no?

A hot topic for debate in Switzlerland .........

...is how anything and everything can be hijacked for a right wing wank-fest....?

She was there for very controversial trade deal:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/30/europe/EU-GEN-Switzerland-Iran-Deal.php
I knew as much; the query was whether people should get so worked up over the headgear when the deal itself raises issues of collaboration with the administration.

...is how anything and everything can be hijacked for a right wing wank-fest....?
I'm gonna save that one because it shows clearly how sutpid and knee-jerk you really are.

My OP showed how it was being debated and attacked by both the SVP and certain leftists and feminists......

Last time I checked, leftists and feminists don't constitute a "right wing wank-fest".

Enjoy being a complete tool.

Funny enough, I don't think she'll ever win because in the Middle East...


Lol I laughed when I read Saudi-Arabia's.....it's like a good woman joke but not.

I'm gonna save that one because it shows clearly how sutpid and knee-jerk you really are.


O theres Irony...

Your argument would be the same if I asked you of our friend the Iranian president there, should wear a ball cap cocked to one side, with no shirt and a pair of short-jeans down around his knees showing his shiny gold-looking boxers while he blasts music by 50 cent as a sign of respect to a predominant western cultural ideal? Of course he shouldn't (I hope we can agree how hilarious it would be though if he did), in fact our cultural ideals would be pretty pissed off if he did, no?
Man, that's genius. He'd go up a few notches in my respect book if he did (which'd put him a little above Mugabe and Pol Pot, but just below Dr Robotnik. Yes, fictional people are in my respect book too).

O theres Irony...
All I see is you getting pwned me by because you jumped to conclusions. So I'm gonna enjoy that and you enjoy looking like an idiot. ;)

Do you recall this story:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/florida.license.veil/

So yes, they can be expected to take off the headscarf here in specific circumstances.

Funny enough, I don't think she'll ever win because in the Middle East...

That has nothing whatsoever to do with removing the veil out of respect for 'western culture': if you're in a situation where it's necessary to see your face then it stands to reason that you'd have to remove anything that's obscuring it.

It's like saying "you wouldn't object to women being made to cover-up their hair if they were visiting a factory or kitchen in a Muslim country, so there's nothing wrong with them being made to cover their hair elsewhere in the country". The first instance would be one of practicality (safety and hygiene) whereas the second is oppression.

Man, that's genius. He'd go up a few notches in my respect book if he did (which'd put him a little above Mugabe and Pol Pot, but just below Dr Robotnik. Yes, fictional people are in my respect book too).

Lol...Dr. Robotnik:

http://www.blackwolf-images.com/images/dic/sonic/robotnik_106-198-r13.jpg

But by wearing it she was showing that she was ok with a rule that forces Iranian women to wear it

Not necessarily, anymore than attendance at a church funeral signifies religious belief.

Did many on the US right jump up and down when the Shah banned the headscarf? I doubt it. Had he been anti-US we'd never have heard the end of it. This doesn't deserve the dignity of being called "cultural imperialism". And when the talk about the "oppressive regime" in Iran and its treatment started, the same people who supported channeling funds to the various regimes running rape squads of Latin America were behind it.

All I see is you getting pwned me by because you jumped to conclusions. So I'm gonna enjoy that and you enjoy looking like an idiot. ;)

I jumped to the conclusion that thee and thine ilk jump on this kind of thing in a right wing wankfest? Emmm...yes. Because you do. And did.

Laws against nudity exist in many parts of the West...this is an enforced social norm. Is it then supporting oppression when you choose to wear clothes when visiting as a political representative from abroad? I'm not talking slippery slope, I'm asking your opinion.

That depends: are nudists routinely beaten in the country, are nude-rights campaigners assaulted by police for holding a peaceful protest and do a committee of authoritarian fashion stylists have the power to veto a parliamentary candidate's run for election, making a mockery of their claims to democracy?

But by wearing it she was showing that she was ok with a rule that forces Iranian women to wear it <SNIP>

No, she was being a polite guest.

It seems to me that leftists hide behind the "it's their culture" argument when they do business with Islamic fundamentalists. Suddenly women's rights and gay rights no longer seem to matter if it is your "culture" to repress and punish those types of people.

Dare I say that humanity would have never seen the gains in human rights if people actually believed such stupidity. Women voting? Blacks voting? End slavery? Repress the Jews? All of these things would fall under "cultural norms" if viewed through such eyes.

I'd consider myself to be a leftist and I frequently condemn the lack of equal rights for women and homosexuals in Muslim countries.

I don't see the problem here. So a woman wore something of her own free will to respect local customs.

If the hijab was such a sign of oppression then why do so many women want to wear it?

Yes some fundamentalist religious nutcases use is as a way to oppress women, but the religious meaning behind it is modesty.

It's not much different than the nudist example that was brought up. Some people think clothes need to be worn because it's modest to do so, while nudists find clothing laws repressive. Do people get harassed and beaten up in the US for being nudists? Yes. Do people get thrown in jail for not following modesty laws in the US by going nude in public? yes. In some places they are even tryign to make showing your boxers illegal.

(Calmy-Rey with head covering in Iran)




How disgusting. Both from a moral and aesthetics point of view. She shouldnt have gone to Iran at the first place.

If the hijab was such a sign of oppression then why do so many women want to wear it?



Have you heard of Stockholm syndrome? Or what about those Texas children who thought marrying older men was OK? Some people just take shit, they dont know how not to and/or they think it's ok because they dont know the alternatives.

Let me get this straight...


Muslims dont assimilate 100% into western culture...right wing cooks scream ZOMG OMG EBIL MOSLAMS!!!!!

Westerner goes to meet with Middle Eastern Leader and follows the customs of the country she is in...right wing cooks scream ZOMG WHY ARE WE FOLLOWING THEIR CUSTOMS!!!!


The logical disconnect and hypocrisy there is...frankly astounding.


Of course I am against the mandatory head scarf laws in some countries. But I accept that in their culture they wear them.

Its just funny to me to see the people crying foul everytime a Muslim doesnt assimilate ALSO crying foul when a westernern DOES assimilate. These people should just come out and say they think that we should do whatever we can t alienate Muslims. At least then theyd be honost.

Have you heard of Stockholm syndrome? Or what about those Texas children who thought marrying older men was OK? Some people just take shit, they dont know how not to and/or they think it's ok because they dont know the alternatives.

Yes, I've heard of it. Your argument has nothing to do with Stockholm syndrome and is frankly the stupidest thing I've heard all day. Women all over the world who take their faith seriously wear the hijab as a sign of modesty.

Have you heard of Stockholm syndrome? Or what about those Texas children who thought marrying older men was OK? Some people just take shit, they dont know how not to and/or they think it's ok because they dont know the alternatives.

When I went to school here in Montreal, I frequently had fellow students who wore the hijab in many of my classes. One could safely assume that they were as well educated as any other Canadian woman.

Now, you seem to be saying that they must either suffer from Stockholm syndrome or be meek or be ignorant.

Since they are as well educated as the average Canadian and have never been taken hostage, one is left with the last option: that they are meek.

So, you're basically saying that all those Muslim women I have met over the years are meek and submissive, despite the fact that you have never met them. Now tell me, how is your opinion of these women any different from those who would force the hijab on them?

I wonder if you even realise how sexist you are.

Yes, I've heard of it. Your argument has nothing to do with Stockholm syndrome and is frankly the stupidest thing I've heard all day. Women all over the world who take their faith seriously wear the hijab as a sign of modesty.

And women all over the world wear it because they'll get beaten by the police (or even their husbands in countries where its not done by the government) if they dont.

Its not inherant either way. But to say that most women wear it because they want to I think is a bit...naive.

Let me get this straight...


Muslims dont assimilate 100% into western culture...right wing cooks scream ZOMG OMG EBIL MOSLAMS!!!!!

Westerner goes to meet with Middle Eastern Leader and follows the customs of the country she is in...right wing cooks scream ZOMG WHY ARE WE FOLLOWING THEIR CUSTOMS!!!!


The logical disconnect and hypocrisy there is...frankly astounding.


Of course I am against the mandatory head scarf laws in some countries. But I accept that in their culture they wear them.

Its just funny to me to see the people crying foul everytime a Muslim doesnt assimilate ALSO crying foul when a westernern DOES assimilate. These people should just come out and say they think that we should do whatever we can t alienate Muslims. At least then theyd be honost.

Bingo. We should not hold them up to double standards. On the other hand, they shouldn't hold US up to double standards.

Yes, I've heard of it. Your argument has nothing to do with Stockholm syndrome and is frankly the stupidest thing I've heard all day. Women all over the world who take their faith seriously wear the hijab as a sign of modesty.

Well, the Texas faith marries 13 yo girls with 50 yo men. I'm sure women in that community take their faith seriously too, letting their children to go thru with it. And of course gay Christians. They take their faith seriously too and end up hating themselves or child molestors.

Surely, my argument was very stupid. The fact that many women wears headscarves has nothing to do with oppression/submission dynamics which is correlated with Stockholm syndrome.

And women all over the world wear it because they'll get beaten by the police (or even their husbands in countries where its not done by the government) if they dont.

Its not inherant either way. But to say that most women wear it because they want to I think is a bit...naive.

That is also true. The politics of the hijab is far more complex than a simple yes/no poll could address. On the one hand, we should allow Muslim women to wear it if they wish to identify as muslims, but on the other hand we should speak out whenever a woman is forced to wear it by a theocracy.

Muslim-bashers like it because they get to pretend the are trumpetting women's rights, but they always forget to do one thing: integrate the woman's choice into the solution.

In other words, we don't get rid of Islam because some Muslim theocracies use head coverings as a visible sympbol of women's oppression. Instead we fight with the women who are oppressed so that they get the society they deserve: one that recognises their human rights and dignity. If Islam is changed in the process, so be it. But changing religions is not our end goal. Liberating humans is the goal.

And women all over the world wear it because they'll get beaten by the police (or even their husbands in countries where its not done by the government) if they dont.

Its not inherant either way. But to say that most women wear it because they want to I think is a bit...naive.

I would like you to point me to the text where I said that most women wear it for one reason or another. If you can't then I suggest you read more carefully next time before wasting your time and bandwidth on a reply.

Well, the Texas faith marries 13 yo girls with 50 yo men. I'm sure women in that community take their faith seriously too, letting their children to go thru with it. And of course gay Christians. They take their faith seriously too and end up hating themselves or child molestors.

Surely, my argument was very stupid. The fact that many women wears headscarves has nothing to do with oppression/submission dynamics which is correlated with Stockholm syndrome.


Being indoctrinated into something since birth is a bit different than Stockholm Syndrome. I'm not saying that woman aren't forced into wearing a hijab in certain parts of the world, but not all of them are. Many do it because they take their religion seriously and want to abide by the interpretation they believe in.

I'm saying that this whole bitchfit over some woman visiting Iran and wearing a hijab does not promote anything but courtesy regarding quaint local customs. If she had gone to Iran and helped them hang someone because they were gay or helped write legislation that disallowed women from driving, then I could see a reason for an uproar.

So if Ms President used the time machine to visit Arabia during the Middle Ages, she naturally would wear a yellow badge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge) so as not to offend the honorable hosts.
I think she disgraced herself. The way women are treated in Iran is wrong and the compulsory head covering is part of it.

Okay, so let's do a quick recap, shall we?

TAI complains that laws that control what women wear are bad, and that women are being oppressed by them.

TAI sees a woman that chose to wear the scarf.

Are you with me so far? Good. Miru ga ii - Check this out:

TAI then proceeds to claim that the woman should not wear the scarf, essentially wanting to have control over what she wears.

KYAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA! *Breathes* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/11/22/howard_wideweb__430x234.jpg

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-11/20/xin_5911032010586913131360.jpg

http://members.fortunecity.com/sartre65/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/capt.india_clinton_earthquake_ahm101.jpg

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/images/obamaturban.jpg

http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2007/10/25/amd_hil4.jpg

http://www.yorku.ca/gsay/clinton.JPG

http://images.derstandard.at/20041203/a(11).jpg

Wow, they must all be doing something terrible too. Especially Hillary!

TAI sees a woman that chose to wear the scarf.
This is where your chain of logic jumped off the gears of reality.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with removing the veil out of respect for 'western culture': if you're in a situation where it's necessary to see your face then it stands to reason that you'd have to remove anything that's obscuring it.

It's like saying "you wouldn't object to women being made to cover-up their hair if they were visiting a factory or kitchen in a Muslim country, so there's nothing wrong with them being made to cover their hair elsewhere in the country". The first instance would be one of practicality (safety and hygiene) whereas the second is oppression.

He asked if there were a situation in which women could reasonably be asked to remove the veil because of western culture.

Was this or any other Western diplomat FORCED to wear the veil in Iran?

This is where your chain of logic jumped off the gears of reality.

Really? Pray tell, how? They would not, despite your fantasies, arrest her for not wearing it.

I'd consider myself to be a leftist and I frequently condemn the lack of equal rights for women and homosexuals in Muslim countries.

Bully for you. Now go sit down with the president of one of those countries wearing an "I (heart) Homosexuals" and see if you are able to to even begin a dialogue regarding their human rights record.

No?

Then perhaps you should have led up to it after building something of a working relationship with them?

In the diplomatic arena, you must first show that you're willing to meet them halfway regarding cultural norms before you start trying to change their views, no?

Really? Pray tell, how? They would not, despite your fantasies, arrest her for not wearing it.
Are we talking about the situation decribed in the OP? She's not "a woman that chose to wear the scarf" - she's the Swiss president. By chosing to cover her head as a sign of respect for the local custom, she allows the Iranian government to use this picture as a sign of acceptance of their policies toward women by the West. That's wrong.

Are we talking about the situation decribed in the OP? She's not "a woman that chose to wear the scarf" - she's the Swiss president. By chosing to cover her head as a sign of respect for the local custom, she allows the Iranian government to use this picture as a sign of acceptance of their policies toward women by the West. That's wrong.

So you want to take a stand against forcing women to dress in a given way by forcing another woman to dress in a given way.

Again:

KYAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA! *Breathes* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Now go sit down with the president of one of those countries wearing an "I (heart) Homosexuals" and see if you are able to to even begin a dialogue regarding their human rights record.
The logic is flawed right there because wearing a shirt with a picture of Allah on it that said "Muslims are terrorists" or something....thus being intentionally provoking is NOT the same as simply coming normal and as yourself. And, like my OP showed, German Chancellor Merkel went to Saudi-Arabia, a country far more backwards than Iran, and didn't wear a headscarf...and they discussed business and he did not kick her out....

Have you heard of Stockholm syndrome? Or what about those Texas children who thought marrying older men was OK? Some people just take shit, they dont know how not to and/or they think it's ok because they dont know the alternatives.

That explains, of course, all the Muslim girls I have in my classes in NYC who wear scarves -- and the Muslim girls sitting right beside them who don't.

Because of STOCKHOLM SYNDROME... where they grow to depend on and feel as if they love their KIDNAPPERS. :rolleyes:

That is also true. The politics of the hijab is far more complex than a simple yes/no poll could address. On the one hand, we should allow Muslim women to wear it if they wish to identify as muslims, but on the other hand we should speak out whenever a woman is forced to wear it by a theocracy.

Muslim-bashers like it because they get to pretend the are trumpetting women's rights, but they always forget to do one thing: integrate the woman's choice into the solution.

In other words, we don't get rid of Islam because some Muslim theocracies use head coverings as a visible sympbol of women's oppression. Instead we fight with the women who are oppressed so that they get the society they deserve: one that recognises their human rights and dignity. If Islam is changed in the process, so be it. But changing religions is not our end goal. Liberating humans is the goal.

Very well put! I would have to agree whole-heartedly with your post!

So you want to take a stand against forcing women to dress in a given way by forcing another woman to dress in a given way.
The difference between me and the Iranian government being that I have no power over this particular human being, while they can and do force their citizens to conform to their views.
Also, I am not trying to make her to uncover her head ever time she's in public.
Also, I am not actually "forcing" her to do anything by any other power than my arguments.
Also, I am not trying to alter her behavior because she's a woman, but because she's high ranking politician.
Other than that, yeah, I'd say the analogy is nigh perfect.

I didnt vote because i refused to be labeled "Left, Right, or Moderate"

But, its their right to dress the way they please, regardless of what it represents...If they wish to wear the scarf they should, if not, then they shouldnt, thats the way it should be...

The logic is flawed right there because wearing a shirt with a picture of Allah on it that said "Muslims are terrorists" or something....thus being intentionally provoking is NOT the same as simply coming normal and as yourself. And, like my OP showed, German Chancellor Merkel went to Saudi-Arabia, a country far more backwards than Iran, and didn't wear a headscarf...and they discussed business and he did not kick her out....

So now the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran, and the officials of both nations, are interchangeable and would react exactly the same, because they are both Arab and Muslim?

The logic is flawed right there because wearing a shirt with a picture of Allah on it that said "Muslims are terrorists"

Excuse me, where did I say that?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/Strawman.jpg

.... It looks like she pulled a curtain off the rack and wraped it around her head.

Excuse me, where did I say that?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/Strawman.jpg
I was making the point that wearing something OFFENSIVE on purpose and NOT wearing something because you don't want to stoop to their level is not interchangable....

So now the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran, and the officials of both nations, are interchangeable and would react exactly the same, because they are both Arab and Muslim?
Iran isn't Arab.

Anyways, what a non-issue. Iranian law says one thing, in practice everyone ignores it. Scarves are worn as fashion items and don't cover jack. Iranian government attempts to crack down on such sinful behaviour have not been pursued because young Iranian women don't cowtow to the government anymore and just do what they want, while watching American television and going out on Saturday nights to dance to the latest pop music.

This Swiss lady decided she was going to be nice and respect another tradition. Hardly necessary, and if you ask me she looks quite stupid in it. That is not a statement in any way, shape or form, it's not a political issue.

But once again a right-wing populist party yells "Islam" and everyone talks about it. Maybe we should try ignoring them next time?

So now the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran, and the officials of both nations, are interchangeable and would react exactly the same, because they are both Arab and Muslim?
No....but again..not the point..it's the manner of conducting foreign policy that I was commenting on.

http://www.20min.ch/news/schweiz/story/15608284

The article frequently brings it up, about what people feel is the direct form of diplomacy...Calmy-Rey's or Merkel's.

Die Schweizer Aussenministerin trug in Teheran Kopftuch, um ihre Höflichkeit zu demonstrieren. Die deutsche Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel war in Saudi-Arabien nicht so höflich: Sie parlierte barhäuptig mit König Abdullah.
20minuten.ch fragte die User, welche Politikerin das richtige Verhalten an den Tag gelegt habe — Merkel oder Calmy-Rey. Das Verdikt war eindeutig: Von den insgesamt über 11 300 Teilnehmenden gaben 7104 (63%) Merkel Recht.

It means:
The Swiss foreign minister wore a headscarf in Tehran to demonstrate her courtesy. The German chancellor Merkel was not so curtious in Saudi-Arabia. She chatted with King Abdullah without a headscarf. Which politician made the right decision on that day? Merkel or Calmy-Rey? From over 11,300 voters, 7104, 63% said Merkel was right.

And Iran isn't Arab

Iran isn't Arab.

Anyways, what a non-issue. Iranian law says one thing, in practice everyone ignores it. Scarves are worn as fashion items and don't cover jack. Iranian government attempts to crack down on such sinful behaviour have not been pursued because young Iranian women don't cowtow to the government anymore and just do what they want, while watching American television and going out on Saturday nights to dance to the latest pop music.

This Swiss lady decided she was going to be nice and respect another tradition. Hardly necessary, and if you ask me she looks quite stupid in it. That is not a statement in any way, shape or form, it's not a political issue.

But once again a right-wing populist party yells "Islam" and everyone talks about it. Maybe we should try ignoring them next time?

Thank you for your opinion, but again for some reason everyone sees SVP and ignores the rest...there was clearly discussion by other leftists who felt it was the wrong choice, and feminists....

Hardly "right wing populists".....:rolleyes:

The difference between me and the Iranian government being that I have no power over this particular human being, while they can and do force their citizens to conform to their views.
Also, I am not trying to make her to uncover her head ever time she's in public.
Also, I am not actually "forcing" her to do anything by any other power than my arguments.
Also, I am not trying to alter her behavior because she's a woman, but because she's high ranking politician.
Other than that, yeah, I'd say the analogy is nigh perfect.

1- You are complaining about her not uncovering her head all the same.

2- You would like to force her to.

3- You're trying to alter her behavior nonetheless, based on YOUR notions of how SHE should act regarding something that is HER business, not YOURS.

Thank you for your opinion, but again for some reason everyone sees SVP and ignores the rest...
And I'm to assume you have the interest of Iranian women at heart then?

To the various other critics of this incident the same arguments apply. But also fact is that this thread would not exist if the SVP hadn't started a campaign about it.

Case in point:
http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/570.jpg
http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/568.jpg
http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/569.jpg
http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/572.jpg
http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/565.jpg
http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/567.jpg
http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/576.jpg

Oh, the dhimmitude.

So can we put this one back into the drawer now? Sometimes people dress up in local outfits when they travel to places. Often they do it because it is a cultural elective, that is something you can do to show that you care - in this case it was about Switzerland really wanting a natural gas deal with Iran (and if you wanted to rant about human rights abuse, maybe that would have been a better option).

None of these women is making a statement about Islam, women's rights or other such issues. None of the ladies in the pictures would be expected to have any particular respect for laws that don't respect women. Neither does this Swiss lady.

Further proof that NSG is addicted to Ebil Moslemz scaremongering.

It's been said before, this thread is pure hypocrisy. The Busheviks here bitch about how teh ebil moslemz refuse to adapt Western customs and attire, yet when a Westerner adapts Islamic customs and attire out of cultural respect, they then suddenly bitch about how a certain dress is ebil izlamik oppreshun and how she should refuse to wear it.

Bushevik Doublethink at its finest.

And I'm comfortable saying it'll be no suprise that these people will be the same folks who hold the Doublethink that everyone should boycott Absolut for a cute advertisement campaign aimed strictly at Mexico while bitching that teh ebil moslemz should get a thicker skin about sacrilegous cartoons in a Danish newspaper.

Further proof that NSG is addicted to Ebil Moslemz scaremongering.

It's been said before, this thread is pure hypocrisy. The Busheviks here bitch about how teh ebil moslemz refuse to adapt Western customs and attire, yet when a Westerner adapts Islamic customs and attire out of cultural respect, they then suddenly bitch about how a certain dress is ebil izlamik oppreshun and how she should refuse to wear it.

Bushevik Doublethink at its finest.

And I'm comfortable saying it'll be no suprise that these people will be the same folks who hold the Doublethink that everyone should boycott Absolut for a cute advertisement campaign aimed strictly at Mexico while bitching that teh ebil moslemz should get a thicker skin about sacrilegous cartoons in a Danish newspaper.
Bush....what the hell now?! Goddamn it....

Bush....what the hell now?! Goddamn it....

I said Bushevik. Not Bush. And aside from trying to spin this into a catchphrase argument, the point of that post still stands. It's hypocrisy and doublethink in action.

The logic is flawed right there because wearing a shirt with a picture of Allah on it that said "Muslims are terrorists" or something....thus being intentionally provoking is NOT the same as simply coming normal and as yourself.
Feel free to come into a house in Japan with your shoes on then and state proudly how you're just "Coming normal as yourself" and see how well the Japanese will deal with you then.

I said Bushevik. Not Bush. And aside from trying to spin this into a catchphrase argument, the point of that post still stands. It's hypocrisy and doublethink in action.
Yeah, but it's always the Busheviks or the Bush people or Bush this or that or the other.

Feel free to come into a house in Japan with your shoes on then and state proudly how you're just "Coming normal as yourself" and see how well the Japanese will deal with you then.

Well, since the muddy shoes would get the floor filthy...

Taihen ne?

Yeah, but it's always the Busheviks or the Bush people or Bush this or that or the other.

Given that the most prolific posters of Ebil Izlam threads on NSG identify themselves as right-wing, it's not a far-off estimation.

Given that the most prolific posters of Ebil Izlam threads on NSG identify themselves as right-wing, it's not a far-off estimation.
And what does "right-wing" have to do with Bush? The SVP (whom the OP supports, for example) are borderline anti-American and certainly no friends of Bush. The same goes for pretty much all other xenophobic and anti-Islamic parties in Europe.

Your point was valid, but Bushevik was the wrong term to use.

She is respecting their customs when she is in their country. Would we not want and expect the Muslims to do the same in the west? (Regardless of whether they actually do or not)

Qft. She was just being polite. Just as I, who am atheist, try to dress according to christian modesty standards when entering a church, or cover my head if I visit a synagogue, or remove my shoes if I enter a mosque. Or don't go at La Scala in swimming trunks.

Politeness is a good idea. Always. If Ahmadinejad fails at being polite (he's an asshole, to be more accurate), this is no reason for failing at politeness for visiting personalities, too: it is a reason to be more polite, so to show the difference.

Ah, so the useless, idiotic, proto-Nazi group of morons called the SVP were the ones that were whining about it and trying, yes, to force her to dress as THEY wanted her to?

No wonder TAI supports them.

I'm not a muslim. I went to a mosque. I took my shoes off. The girls I was with covered their heads. No issue, no argument, no problem. And, FYI, I've been to two majority-muslim countries and have seen women who are quite happy not to wear the headscarf in both.

The question is do you respect what may be fundementally wrong.


It's a headscarf. How in all that is logical is that fundamentally wrong?


And the statement by some leftists and feminists is that it's a HUGE setback for anyone campaigning for women's freedom in Iran.

Yeah, and in one blog NS brought to light, some nut paints the series Firefly as a rapist promoting, woman hating, white male supremacy promoting show. Do we give that nut credence? No. Should we give these nuts credence? No.

Encouragement, however strong, is not outright obligation.
The 'obligation' to wear the headscarf in Islam is no more or less than the 'obligation' in Orthodox Christianity or Judaism. People pick and choose how strongly and what religious tenets they obey in every religion, Abrahamic or not.

Muslim-bashers like it because they get to pretend the are trumpetting women's rights, but they always forget to do one thing: integrate the woman's choice into the solution.


Thats another great part about this whole thing. Most of the right wing groups who jump on the OMG EBIL MUSLIMS OPPRESS TEH WOMENZ bandwagon dont give two shits about women, and I think a lot of people see right through it. Most of these groups and people are the same that talk about how feminists destroy family values and all that and are offended by women showing clevage. Theyre also usually anti-choice.

Pretending like they care about oppressed women is really disingenuous.

When I went to school here in Montreal, I frequently had fellow students who wore the hijab in many of my classes. One could safely assume that they were as well educated as any other Canadian woman.

Now, you seem to be saying that they must either suffer from Stockholm syndrome or be meek or be ignorant.

Since they are as well educated as the average Canadian and have never been taken hostage, one is left with the last option: that they are meek.

So, you're basically saying that all those Muslim women I have met over the years are meek and submissive, despite the fact that you have never met them. Now tell me, how is your opinion of these women any different from those who would force the hijab on them?

I wonder if you even realise how sexist you are.

Funny story time, goes in with the meek and submissive argument.

A very close friend of mine is a muslim woman. She wears the headscarf, she considers herself devout in many ways, and in many she actually is, but she's a total bitch. In a good way.

Let me give you an example. Her and her husband (they married young, nice guy) go to unioversity together, with me. She was one day flirting openly with him in the hall, because she can, and one of the foreign students, a young Egyptian man who came to study here, decided to take it upon himself to "correct" her "unmuslim" attitude. After some argument, her husband laughing, and the other guy trying to berate him for not keeping control of her, and him basicly telling the guy to fuck off because she can do what he wants, he got fed up and decided to push his point by striking her. Biggest mistake that man will ever make I'm sure. He slapper her cheek, and before it even got red he was on the ground with a broken arm and a concussion. She wears the hijab, prays five times a day, does a lot more stuff then most muslims I know, but she is in no way weak, or submissive.

What's my point? Anyone here trying to presume people of any type are one way or another, they're oppressed if they wear the hijab, they're submissive and meek if they're a muslim woman, is just trying to impart whatever sexist/bigoted ideals they have. You don't know who they are, you don't know what they decide. And I can assure you most muslim women arn't forced to wear the headscarf, to think so is just dumb and stereotyping at best.

Funny story time, goes in with the meek and submissive argument.

A very close friend of mine is a muslim woman. She wears the headscarf, she considers herself devout in many ways, and in many she actually is, but she's a total bitch. In a good way.

Let me give you an example. Her and her husband (they married young, nice guy) go to unioversity together, with me. She was one day flirting openly with him in the hall, because she can, and one of the foreign students, a young Egyptian man who came to study here, decided to take it upon himself to "correct" her "unmuslim" attitude. After some argument, her husband laughing, and the other guy trying to berate him for not keeping control of her, and him basicly telling the guy to fuck off because she can do what he wants, he got fed up and decided to push his point by striking her. Biggest mistake that man will ever make I'm sure. He slapper her cheek, and before it even got red he was on the ground with a broken arm and a concussion. She wears the hijab, prays five times a day, does a lot more stuff then most muslims I know, but she is in no way weak, or submissive.

What's my point? Anyone here trying to presume people of any type are one way or another, they're oppressed if they wear the hijab, they're submissive and meek if they're a muslim woman, is just trying to impart whatever sexist/bigoted ideals they have. You don't know who they are, you don't know what they decide. And I can assure you most muslim women arn't forced to wear the headscarf, to think so is just dumb and stereotyping at best.



That story isnt funny, its infuriating. Im glad the Egyptian got pwnt like stolen merchindise.

Feel free to come into a house in Japan with your shoes on then and state proudly how you're just "Coming normal as yourself" and see how well the Japanese will deal with you then.

Well, given that this is TAI, he'd probably then say the Japanese were "backwards" and needed to be brought the "light of civilization". Manifest Destiny nuts are like that.

That story isnt funny, its infuriating. Im glad the Egyptian got pwnt like stolen merchindise.

You probably had to have been there, we all had a good laugh at it. Hell the Shiekh who used to run the local mosque had a good laugh at it (Cool guy, too bad he died recently).

Plus, what I understand, the guy was pressured to press charges on her by his friends and family and the school, and absolutely refused to do it because he didn't like it being known that he had his ass handed to him by a woman.

Plus, what I understand, the guy was pressured to press charges on her by his friends and family and the school, and absolutely refused to do it because he didn't like it being known that he had his ass handed to him by a woman.

That is actually very funny. Im suprised however the school didnt know better. He struck her. End of story. In the states at least, a judge will ALWAYS look more favorably upon the woman if shes been hit first.

That is actually very funny. Im suprised however the school didnt know better. He struck her. End of story. In the states at least, a judge will ALWAYS look more favorably upon the woman if shes been hit first.

She didn't push it either. He left after his first semester and never came back, and she got to get away with putting a guy in the hospital. It was win for her, lose for him.

That was two years ago now and it still comes up as a running joke. Poor guy will only be remembered around here for that.

Edit: He only slapped her, she twisted his arm and drove him face first into a brick wall. As far as the school was concerned she was at fault for undue force. But they didn't push it very far as they would not have had a good reaction from the local muslim community, or the even larger local christian community (And the school was founded as a christian school) for oppression of women or something. So if he didn't want to press charges, they dropped the idea. I don't think anymore then one or two staff actually wanted them to anyway.

Hmm. Don't know how I feel about this one -- on the one hand, if I was on a diplomatic mission I would want to avoid being impolite to anybody as it would get in the way of my mission. If I wasn't religious I wouldn't give a dang personally about wearing a headscarf or not, so I might well wear one out of politeness.

On the other hand, Iranian women have to wear the veil by law, whether they want to or not. As a representative of my country's values, I would want to avoid condoning that kind of state-enforced religious rule, so I would avoid wearing the headscarf.

So I suppose her wearing the headscarf indicated that it was more important to her to accomplish diplomatic goals than to make a statement. Which isn't necessarily bad, maybe she felt that she could serve Switzerland more effectively by talking softly (in public) and carrying a big stick (in private).

A set of excellent points. Personally, I would not wear the headscarf, as a protest against requiring it of Iranian women. A person should be able to decide for themselves what level of modesty (or lack thereof) is proper for them.

She didn't push it either. He left after his first semester and never came back, and she got to get away with putting a guy in the hospital. It was win for her, lose for him.

That was two years ago now and it still comes up as a running joke. Poor guy will only be remembered around here for that.

Edit: He only slapped her, she twisted his arm and drove him face first into a brick wall. As far as the school was concerned she was at fault for undue force. But they didn't push it very far as they would not have had a good reaction from the local muslim community, or the even larger local christian community (And the school was founded as a christian school) for oppression of women or something. So if he didn't want to press charges, they dropped the idea. I don't think anymore then one or two staff actually wanted them to anyway.

I liked that woman. She didn't only break an arm, she broke a stereotype. :D

And with style, might I add!

Yes, as integration has always (well..atleast until recently) be the goal of our immigration services.



Not if when respecting their customs you are doing something that is supporting oppression.

Translation: It's not oppression when we do it! Speak English or get lost! We don't want Mexicans! Muslims are evil and should die! It's not oppression because we do it!

Really TAI, your track record on NSG speaks volumes about your hypocrisy. Don't pretend to be something you aren't.

Now go sit down with the president of one of those countries wearing an "I (heart) Homosexuals" and see if you are able to to even begin a dialogue regarding their human rights record.

The logic is flawed right there because wearing a shirt with a picture of Allah on it that said "Muslims are terrorists" or something

I was making the point that wearing something OFFENSIVE on purpose and NOT wearing something because you don't want to stoop to their level is not interchangable....

Yes TAI, we know you find homosexuals offensive too. About as much as you find Muslims offensive. Which goes to say a lot about you.

Don't female buddhists shave their heads? All the ones here in the Buddhist temples/whatever do.

Quick point: nope, Buddhists as a general rule, do not shave their heads. However, the Buddhist clergy often, but not always, do so.

Here's a picture of my teacher:
http://www.dharma-japan.org/Teacher/Teacher/v01/Images/Sensei.jpg
Note his head is not shaved.

No respect for any Western leader who does what the Swiss President did.

1- You are complaining about her not uncovering her head all the same.
Since when is complaining about someones behaviour the same as forcing someone to alter his or hers behaviour?

2- You would like to force her to.

Please do not try to tell me what I'd like to do.

3- You're trying to alter her behavior nonetheless, based on YOUR notions of how SHE should act regarding something that is HER business, not YOURS.
As soon as she became a politician her behaviour on the job ceased to be exclusively her business. Granted, I'm not a Swiss citizen so all I'm entitled to do it to complain about that.

No respect for any Western leader who does what the Swiss President did.

Oh, right. Almost forgot you're another member of the "ebil moslemz must respect our customs on our turf but we don't have to respect theirs on their turf" crowd.

It's been said before, this thread is pure hypocrisy. The Busheviks here bitch about how teh ebil moslemz refuse to adapt Western customs and attire,
Here meaning the NSG? Because I can't find a single instance of "bitching about how teh ebil moslemz refuse to adapt Western customs and attire" in the entire thread.
And why several posters try to end the discussion, turning the thread into TAI-bashing and clumping anyone who dares to agree with him on that point with the "Busheviks"?

I do love it when people get all worked up about it when people use their freedom of choice. There's nothing wrong with wearing a headscarf, merely something wrong with not having a choice in the matter.

Here meaning the NSG? Because I can't find a single instance of "bitching about how teh ebil moslemz refuse to adapt Western customs and attire" in the entire thread.

If you're trying to look for those instances in this specific thread as opposed to looking up and understanding posts in NSG's history from TAI and other like-minded individuals (New Mitanni and the Kimchi alter-egos come foremost to mind) then of course you won't be able to find those instances. Are you deliberately being obtuse and ignorant about posting histories?

And why several posters try to end the discussion, turning the thread into TAI-bashing and clumping anyone who dares to agree with him on that point with the "Busheviks"?

Again you're conveniently ignoring posting histories and coming to a conclusion based on this thread alone.

:rolleyes:

Again you're conveniently ignoring posting histories and coming to a conclusion based on this thread alone.
There is nothing convenient for me in this, actually convenient thing to do would be to dump the topic like a hot potato once I remembered the background TAI has (I didn't read anything by him lately). But I happen to agree with him on that point. While many people seem to discuss things nobody said in this thread.
I'd have absolutely no problem with Ms. President wearing the scarf during the visit to any country that does not take away the choice in that matter from its citizens. She, as a diplomat, had (I presume) that choice that is denied, at least by the letter of the law, to other women visiting Iran. She decided to use this choice to show respect for the local laws. I believe her choice can and will be used in a different way, a way that I disagree with.

There is nothing convenient for me in this, actually convenient thing to do would be to dump the topic like a hot potato once I remembered the background TAI has (I didn't read anything by him lately). But I happen to agree with him on that point. While many people seem to discuss things nobody said in this thread.
I'd have absolutely no problem with Ms. President wearing the scarf during the visit to any country that does not take away the choice in that matter from its citizens. She, as a diplomat, had (I presume) that choice that is denied, at least by the letter of the law, to other women visiting Iran. She decided to use this choice to show respect for the local laws. I believe her choice can and will be used in a different way, a way that I disagree with.

Apart from you somehow managing to miss the blatant title of the thread by TAI which insinuates that Islam is a primitive and backward religion that mandates misogynistic theocracies the likes of Saudi Arabia and Taliban Afghanistan, the whole hoopla over this non-issue is disingenous hypocrisy. China has commited a greater scope of oppression in comparison to Iran yet nobody is condemning diplomats who do nothing to confront the Chinese government strongly on their human rights abuses. In fact, had Madame President been visiting China and decided to try out some Chinese customs in deference, nobody except Tibet Independence and Human Rights activists would have raised a stinker about it.

The only reason this non-issue is being blown out of proportion is that it just happens to involve an Islamic nation, and given TAI's habits of doing Kimchiesque threads that are twisted into blanket indictment of Islam and Muslims at every opportunity possible it's no surprise.

Note his head is not shaved.


Maybe its the glasses, but he bears a resemblance to R. Lee Ermey.

Maybe its the glasses, but he bears a resemblance to R. Lee Ermey.

There's a scary image huh? A Buddhist priest drill sergeant.

Apart from you somehow managing to miss the blatant title of the thread
I agree, the thread title should have rung the bell.
the whole hoopla over this non-issue is disingenous hypocrisy. China has commited a greater scope of oppression in comparison to Iran yet nobody is condemning diplomats who do nothing to confront the Chinese government strongly on their human rights abuses.
In fact, I remember press articles condemning the world leaders who visited China for failing to address the human rights issue. Perhaps we read different publications.
In fact, had Madame President been visiting China and decided to try out some Chinese customs in deference, nobody except Tibet Independence and Human Rights activists would have raised a stinker about it.
To make the analogy more realistic, if she visited Tibet and wore traditional Han attire, I for one would not hesitate in calling her names. I might even write an angry post on a internet forum.

The only reason this non-issue is being blown out of proportion is that it just happens to involve an Islamic nation,
Human and especially women rights in certain islamic nations are not non-issue. I agree that generalizing is wrong, but reading this thread I see very little generalizing - at least on my (and for the time being, TAI's) side.

I have a few replies to make..but they will have to come later, as I'm studying my Italian right now. I'd just like to say that the only generalizing and name calling is from Gauthier who someone seems to think he knows what me and "people like me" are thinking even if we don't post it...and also is, and I can't for the life of me figure this one out, trying to bring Bush into this.....?

I know, Gauthier, that it could be very hard for you to comprehend data outside of your comfort zone of "OMG HE'S ATTACKING MUSLIMS" and "OMG HE'S SUPPORTING BUSH"....but not everyone Right-Wing is a Bush Supporter, and not everyone who raises an issue with Islam is a Bush supporter. You'd do well to know that and stop making yourself look like a fool.

here is my view.
Calmy-Rey is the head of state she is supposed to convey the culture in which she comes from. lower ranking people yes should have followed the when In Rome clause. But as head of state she should have declined the head scarf and carried herself as an equal.

Calmy-Rey is the head of state she is supposed to convey the culture in which she comes from.Really? No, not really.

Though I do welcome proof of this claim.

As soon as she became a politician her behaviour on the job ceased to be exclusively her business. Granted, I'm not a Swiss citizen so all I'm entitled to do it to complain about that.

I'm sorry, is her job MODELING?

Because that's just about the only fucking way in which her clothes would be any of your business.

This isn't an issue that should really concern any of us - in most cases it is entirely the woman's decision whether or not she wants to wear the hijab. If you ask American women that wear a hijab they'll often tell you its a matter of self-respect. They wear it because they want people, especially men, to judge them by their personality and not their looks. Foreign concept, I know! ;) But the point is the head covering not about subjugation or forced modesty. It's about being treated like a person and not a sex object.

I'm sorry, is her job MODELING?
Because that's just about the only fucking way in which her clothes would be any of your business.
Do you seriously see her decision to wear a head covering as a fashion choice?

Do you seriously see her decision to wear a head covering as a fashion choice?

Do I look like I give a bad fuck about whether it's a fashion issue or not? It's her business, and hers alone, to decide whether or not to wear a head scarf. Not yours. Not the SVP's. HERS. What is speaking volumes about yours and TAI's hypocrisy is the fact that YOU are the only ones in this thread that want to have a say in what a woman wears. Maybe you would like to forbid veils in the US as well, Mr. Ahmadinejad?

I'm sorry, is her job MODELING?

Because that's just about the only fucking way in which her clothes would be any of your business.
I'm not so sure about that. Clothes make a statement in a politician on the job; we only forget that because much of what we see politicians wearing is bland and businesslike. A world leader attending a serious peace conference dressed as a clown would be considered a serious embarrassment, for instance.

I'm not so sure about that. Clothes make a statement in a politician on the job; we only forget that because much of what we see politicians wearing is bland and businesslike. A world leader attending a serious peace conference dressed as a clown would be considered a serious embarrassment, for instance.

Surely you realize that a veil is not the same as dressing as a clown?

And even then, what would be more likely to GET THE JOB OF GETTING A DEAL DONE? A scarf or going to the conference in a tank-top? Of course, TAI and other morons would like to see Islam in general and the Middle-East in particular being offended for no reason, but to those of us actual people the choice is somewhat easier.

(Though Powell in the run-up to the war in the UN may not have DRESSED as a clown, but he certainly acted as Bush's jester.)

Ladies and Gents. It is completely correct to respect the customs of a country. However, if you wish to do so, make sure you agree with the current custom if it is under debate. A headscarf is not a religious outfit, it is a traditional one. However, many people in those regions have adopted it as a religious outfit after a long time of using it. In the opinion of my state, my own, it is wrong to wear such a thing under religious belief or be forced to wear it at all (religious o r traditional)... However, it takes time to break customs, such a thing does not happen over night. Now, it comes down to the politician at hand, is the issue she was handling with the king of some importance? If it was, it would be best to make sure the king was pleased by the meeting rather than make a statement by not wearing a headscarf, although it is a wonder how much effect that statement would hold, since it is a western woman not wearing a headscarf. If it had been a regional one, let us say the queen of Jordan, who held the meeting and did not wear a head scarf, then that would make a statement to other arab women in the region.

Do I look like I give a bad fuck about whether it's a fashion issue or not? It's her business, and hers alone, to decide whether or not to wear a head scarf. Not yours. Not the SVP's. HERS.
It's her right to make that decision. It's my right to dislike it.
What is speaking volumes about yours and TAI's hypocrisy is the fact that YOU are the only ones in this thread that want to have a say in what a woman wears.
Not a woman - a politician. Her decision to wear a head covering is a political statement. I disagree with that statement. I'm not even trying to hold an opinion what Ms President should wear when she's not representing her country.
I see from your answer above that you do not think that a politician can dress any way he or she likes during a state visit. Why is it then OK to hold opinion on wearing a tank top, but you start to spout profanities when someone has an opinion about wearing a head covering?!

I know, Gauthier, that it could be very hard for you to comprehend data outside of your comfort zone of "OMG HE'S ATTACKING MUSLIMS" and "OMG HE'S SUPPORTING BUSH"....but not everyone Right-Wing is a Bush Supporter, and not everyone who raises an issue with Islam is a Bush supporter. You'd do well to know that and stop making yourself look like a fool.

I don't think her wearing or not wearing a headscarf is really "an issue with Islam".
If anything, it might be an issue with the particular practices of the country in question that have a basis in Islam. Imagine she had worn that scarf in Turkey?

It's her right to make that decision. It's my right to dislike it.

Not a woman - a politician. Her decision to wear a head covering is a political statement. I disagree with that statement. I'm not even trying to hold an opinion what Ms President should wear when she's not representing her country.
I see from your answer above that you do not think that a politician can dress any way he or she likes during a state visit. Why is it then OK to hold opinion on wearing a tank top, but you start to spout profanities when someone has an opinion about wearing a head covering?!

1- What I said was about which was more likely to get the job done.

2- You and TAI, however, are going "we should have used the opportunity to offend".

3- It's still her choice, as an elected representative, what to wear, whatever statement it makes.

I don't think her wearing or not wearing a headscarf is really "an issue with Islam".
If anything, it might be an issue with the particular practices of the country in question that have a basis in Islam. Imagine she had worn that scarf in Turkey?They're not too keen on that, over there...
The ruling party is risking being banned because they lifted the prohibition.

They're not too keen on that, over there...
The ruling party is risking being banned because they lifted the prohibition.

I know ;)
Just highlighting that this is more about politics than religion.

1- What I said was about which was more likely to get the job done.
And I take issue with how far she went to get that job done. Although I'm really not in a position to judge the Swiss, not being in their shoes.
2- You and TAI, however, are going "we should have used the opportunity to offend".
I don't know about TAI, but I'm not a fan of offending anyone for the sake of it. It is sometimes a cost of getting the point across, however.
3- It's still her choice, as an elected representative, what to wear, whatever statement it makes.
Of course it is! Just as it is my hallowed right to bitch about it later and perhaps change my voting habits (were I Swiss).

And I take issue with how far she went to get that job done. Although I'm really not in a position to judge the Swiss, not being in their shoes.

I don't know about TAI, but I'm not a fan of offending anyone for the sake of it. It is sometimes a cost of getting the point across, however.

Of course it is! Just as it is my hallowed right to bitch about it later and perhaps change my voting habits (were I Swiss).

1- She didn't rob, strong-arm or invade a country. She put a scarf on.

2- What point? That dress codes are bad? You could begin by pointing that out to just about every restaurant-owner in your city.

3- If an outfit choice is enough to change your voting habits, perhaps what you should change is your criteria.

Just highlighting that this is more about politics than religion.
You know what? I considered carefully the thread title and I am officially shutting up now. I regret that I didn't do it sooner. I might voice my opinion in another thread with less misleading title.
Ladies and gentlemen, thanks for playing.

And I'm to assume you have the interest of Iranian women at heart then?

To the various other critics of this incident the same arguments apply. But also fact is that this thread would not exist if the SVP hadn't started a campaign about it.

Case in point:
http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/570.jpg
http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/568.jpg
http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/569.jpg
http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/572.jpg
http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/565.jpg
http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/567.jpg
http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/576.jpg

Oh, the dhimmitude.

So can we put this one back into the drawer now? Sometimes people dress up in local outfits when they travel to places. Often they do it because it is a cultural elective, that is something you can do to show that you care - in this case it was about Switzerland really wanting a natural gas deal with Iran (and if you wanted to rant about human rights abuse, maybe that would have been a better option).

None of these women is making a statement about Islam, women's rights or other such issues. None of the ladies in the pictures would be expected to have any particular respect for laws that don't respect women. Neither does this Swiss lady.

This should have been the final word in this thread...

This should have been the final word in this thread...

Yes but when you're running around screaming that the sky is falling, little things like reasonable arguments are irrelevant. It's a TAI thread.

He asked if there were a situation in which women could reasonably be asked to remove the veil because of western culture.

Are you sure about that?

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13628087']In that case, should the same apply to muslim women visiting western countries (Or even those living here)? Should they be expected to take off headscarves out of respect for the dominant culture of their hosts?

He (she?) asked whether Muslim women should refrain from being veiled at all times when they're in western countries due to the native culture. Nothing there about particular circumstances or situations.

Not that it's relevant anyway: I've already pointed out that expecting to see someone's face when you're checking their photo-ID is hardly 'cultural', any more than covering hair in workshops or kitchens for safety or hygiene reasons is cultural.

Was this or any other Western diplomat FORCED to wear the veil in Iran?

Not as far as I know, but how is that relevant? The argument here is that by voluntarily going along with an act of oppression which is forced on native women she's tacitly condoning it. Imagine if a black ambassador visited the US during the time of Rosa Parks and voluntarily chose to sit at the back of the bus: would you support him for respecting the native customs even though they were racist?

Yes but when you're running around screaming that the sky is falling, little things like reasonable arguments are irrelevant. It's a TAI thread.

Yet he keeps on making them.

*sigh*

Not as far as I know, but how is that relevant? The argument here is that by voluntarily going along with an act of oppression which is forced on native women she's tacitly condoning it. Imagine if a black ambassador visited the US during the time of Rosa Parks and voluntarily chose to sit at the back of the bus: would you support him for respecting the native customs even though they were racist?

No, but I think you are missing a key point. The viel is not inherantly oppressive. Making "the darkies" sit in the back of the bus is.

Bully for you. Now go sit down with the president of one of those countries wearing an "I (heart) Homosexuals" and see if you are able to to even begin a dialogue regarding their human rights record.

Not if you don't normally wear one, but you shouldn't go along wearing an 'I hate queers' badge either...

The correct thing to do would be to go along dressed as you normally do. If your normal dress does include an "I (heart) Homosexuals" badge then you shouldn't remove it.


No?

Then perhaps you should have led up to it after building something of a working relationship with them?

If the king of Saudi Arabia (an even nuttier country than Iran) doesn't have a problem with meeting a western leader wearing a headscarf then I can't see it obstructing a working relationship with the Iranians. Hell, if they can't cope with the idea of one woman bare-headed then I don't think the chances of nationwide concessions will be on the table, or even in the room.

In the diplomatic arena, you must first show that you're willing to meet them halfway regarding cultural norms before you start trying to change their views, no?

How is conforming to their enforced dress-code 'meeting them half-way'?

It would only be right and proper to adhere to Iranian culture in general etiquette (the giving of gifts, for example, if that's an Iranian thing), and that would be meeting them half-way, but conforming utterly isn't.

No, but I think you are missing a key point. The viel is not inherantly oppressive. Making "the darkies" sit in the back of the bus is.

There's nothing inherently oppressive about black people sitting at the back of buses, it only becomes so when it's forced, no? ;)

Similarly, even though there's nothing inherently oppressive about hijab, when it's forced then it also become a symbol of oppression, especially when women are beaten by police for refusing to conform to it..

Similarly, even though there's nothing inherently oppressive about hijab, when it's forced then it also become a symbol of oppression, especially when women are beaten by police for refusing to conform to it..

*puts hand up*

I'm forced to wear clothes in public....

What....? Just sayin..... *mumbles*

*puts hand up*

I'm forced to wear clothes in public....

What....? Just sayin..... *mumbles*

Probably for the best;)

*puts hand up*

I'm forced to wear clothes in public....

What....? Just sayin..... *mumbles*

Personally I support everyone's right to go out naked if they want to. Whether they'd want to given the unpredictable British weather is another matter. :p

Personally I support everyone's right to go out naked if they want to. Whether they'd want to given the unpredictable British weather is another matter. :p

I personally think only hot women should be allowed to go naked in public.

I personally think only hot women should be allowed to go naked in public.

Oh, the appeals!

(Defense attorney) "Your honor, she's hot enough!"
(Prosecutor) "No she isn't! Her breasts aren't even D-cups!"
(Defense attorney) "She's an ASIAN! They're hot without need for big boobs!"
(Judge) "She is Asian, all right. Case closed. Miss Yuko, feel free to go. Leave the clothes we lent you at the door. Case dismissed. Also... Um, I'm single. Maybe we could, y'know, meet again sometime."

(Neo Art or any other lawyer, kindly translate this into legalese. ;) )

Objections your Honor. I asked her first.

Objections your Honor. I asked her first.

(Judge) Mr. Buwhan, you're out of order! One more outburst like that will land you in jail.

You're out of order your Honor. You're out of fucking order. :mp5:

You're out of order your Honor. You're out of fucking order. :mp5:

(Judge) Incorrect, you should have said: "I am out of order? YOU'RE out of order! This whole courtroom's out of order!". Bailiff, please escort him to prison.

*puts hand up*

I'm forced to wear clothes in public....

What....? Just sayin..... *mumbles*


Think of the children.




*that sounds a bit sleazy, now that I read it again....

I approve of this thread's new direction. :)

:upyours:



:p





:cool:

Think of the children.




*that sounds a bit sleazy, now that I read it again....

Yeah, I noticed this with those posters:

"Every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten. Think of the kittens."

But... Like, thinking about kittens WHILE you masturbate? Isn't that somewhat icky?

If there's a human rights issue in Iran that needs to be addressed, then it would have been better addressed by her not trading with Iran at all. The headscarf is a nonissue.

If there's a human rights issue in Iran that needs to be addressed, then it would have been better addressed by her not trading with Iran at all. The headscarf is a nonissue.

QFT

If there's a human rights issue in Iran that needs to be addressed, then it would have been better addressed by her not trading with Iran at all. The headscarf is a nonissue.

I agree, and I cannot figure out why the focus would be on this supposed symbol of opression instead of the act of actually enabling the Iranian government economically to opress.


...well, I do understand why, and that's because the SVP is trying to score cheap political points and obfuscating the real issue, something that sadly seems to be working - as is evident by the comments of Roth-Bernasconi and Erfani.