I...Agree with the French

[Idaho]

I really don't care, that's just fashion to me, as I said, but Idaho's mind mentally blocks that I said that. All fresh and fruity for Idaho, oh you marry your 12 year old daughter to a mullah in Childrapistan, how very exotic that just screams for intercultural dialogue since we did that 200 years ago, we can really learn from eachother.

Muslims are like Pokemon to some, they got to love them all.

You don't get it do you dearest Fraggles. The debate is not about what happens elsewhere. It's about the nature of our society. And fundamental to that society is freedom of conscience, religion and dress.

[Fragony]

You don't get it do you dearest Fraggles. The debate is not about what happens elsewhere. It's about the nature of our society. And fundamental to that society is freedom of conscience, religion and dress.

Yeah, we have that.

[rvg]

In that case people should be free to dress in burqas.

[miotas]

It's xenophobic rascism and that's all there is to it. People fear different, and they're different so they must be assimilated ASAP.

[rory_20_uk]

It's xenophobic rascism and that's all there is to it. People fear different, and they're different so they must be assimilated ASAP.

It's not xenophobia as it was never stated that those abiding by different cultural norms are irrationally feared.
It's not racism as no allusion to any specific race has been made.

So, the post is categorically wrong.

[miotas]

It's not xenophobia as it was never stated that those abiding by different cultural norms are irrationally feared.
It's not racism as no allusion to any specific race has been made.

So, the post is categorically wrong.

You can't deny the second half of my post though.

[rvg]

It's xenophobic rascism and that's all there is to it. People fear different, and they're different so they must be assimilated ASAP.

I wouldn't call it racism. I think Fragony perceives islam as a threat to the West, and I actually agree with him. I think that islam is the largest threat to the western way of life. However, I do not consider the curtailing of simple personal liberties to be a good way of stopping islam. Yes, it must be dealt with, but let's leave burqa out of this. Burqa is merely a visible symptom of an underlying disease. You deal with the disease and the symptom will go away.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Cultural relativism is such a cop out.

It's xenophobic rascism and that's all there is to it. People fear different, and they're different so they must be assimilated ASAP.
__________________

So you translate "I don't like it because it denigrates the women" into "I hate and fear the brown foreigners"?

[Fragony]

In that case people should be free to dress in burqas.

No, because security comes first, if Ali el Hakbar el Boomski comes to town he has 100% freedom of movement and we can't have that. As for the rest, have your way, just don't expect a very sympethatic reaction from me when you are walking around like a relic from whateveritwas.

[miotas]

No, because security comes first, if Ali el Hakbar el Boomski comes to town he has 100% freedom of movement and we can't have that. As for the rest, have your way, just don't expect a very sympethatic reaction from me when you are walking around like a relic from whateveritwas.

*facepalm*

Terrorist steryotypes? Are you serious?

[Ser Clegane]

Intermission

It would be great if this thread could continue without making personal attacks, making wild assumptions about the views of your "opponent" and resorting to stereoptypes.
I am currently quite tempted to close this one, but I have not completely given up the hope that this could continue as a meaningful (and civilised) discussion.

Thanks

End of intermission

[HoreTore]

*facepalm*

Terrorist steryotypes? Are you serious?

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

GOLDEN!!

[rvg]

No, because security comes first, if Ali el Hakbar el Boomski comes to town he has 100% freedom of movement and we can't have that. As for the rest, have your way, just don't expect a very sympethatic reaction from me when you are walking around like a relic from whateveritwas.

I don't think you need to worry about a would-be-bomber hiding behind a burqa. If a suicide bomber decides to attack, he'll be clean shaven, dressed in the most casual western attire and would attract zero attention.

[rory_20_uk]

You don't get it do you dearest Fraggles. The debate is not about what happens elsewhere. It's about the nature of our society. And fundamental to that society is freedom of conscience, religion and dress.

So, when I get a husband directing me as to the healthcare of his wife this is OK? Not yet a statistical sample, but so far only those with one religion appear to be making these demands.

[Idaho]

So, when I get a husband directing me as to the healthcare of his wife this is OK? Not yet a statistical sample, but so far only those with one religion appear to be making these demands.

I would say that has nothing to do with clothing. 100 years ago in this country women were considered chattels of their husbands - and they didn't have burkhas on. You are confusing two issues.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I would say that has nothing to do with clothing. 100 years ago in this country women were considered chattels of their husbands - and they didn't have burkhas on. You are confusing two issues.

That's right, they had corsets.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What the , I am terrified by some people's attitutude in this thread. What right do secular authorities have telling religious people what their beliefs are? Like the example where someone said covering the face is not in the Koran... I'm still pretty sure it's in the hadiths, which is why we don't see Shi'ite Iranian women wearing these veils... then again I could be wrong, which is why we should ask a Muslim and not try to tell them what they believe. Or if we don't want to go down that line, maybe I can ban Catholics from following their traditions, it's not in the Bible after all, Sola Scriptura everybody. And that's not just me trolling the RCC, this is more or less what we are doing to Sunni Muslims here.

As for Louis example, I don't think it works because the laws demanding you cover your private areas are quite reasonable, there's a reason why (most) native peoples living in exotic jungles still go to the trouble of covering them up, its human nature not a cultural thing that anyone is imposing. So as long as you are dressed in such a manner that you won't terrify people, it's up to you.

And what is with the "burka's are denigrating to women" argument? So, are we going to liberate these women by telling them what they can and cannot do for their own good? Mummy state knows what is best for you, eh?

[rory_20_uk]

I would say that has nothing to do with clothing. 100 years ago in this country women were considered chattels of their husbands - and they didn't have burkhas on. You are confusing two issues.

Removing the burkhas was often one of the things I wasn't allowed to do. And justifying today by drawing comparison with what we now consider unjustifiable hardly adds weight to your argument.

You can't deny the second half of my post though.

They want to live here. I think that that it is fair to expect assimilation. If not, move on.

Hadiths? Aren't they the extra bits tacked on afterwards? In public I agree that there is not a right to restrict, but there should be in government buildings, offices, schools, hospitals etc.

[miotas]

"Hey, lady. Don't wear that."
"Why?"
"Because no man should be able to tell you what to do."
"What?"
"Yes, that's a good girl. Now wear this skimpy bikini to make you look pretty."

[rory_20_uk]

"Than you for coming in to see me Ms Fatwa"
"No problem headteacher"
"There have been some concerns regarding your teaching of the class"
"Yes?"
"It's concerning the garment that you are wearing that is removing all facial features..."
"I hope you're not telling me what to wear? How DARE you be so intolerant! People from my country can get imprisoned or stoned for criticising the dress!!!"
"Oh, I'm very sorry, but the thing is the children are deaf, and find it hard to bond with a tower of black cloth..."

[HoreTore]

Hadiths? Aren't they the extra bits tacked on afterwards? In public I agree that there is not a right to restrict, but there should be in government buildings, offices, schools, hospitals etc.

So....

You want the muslim women to stay away from schools, hospital, government buildings, etc?

Yes, that's a nice way to improve their situation....

[Fragony]

So....

You want the muslim women to stay away from schools, hospital, government buildings, etc?

Yes, that's a nice way to improve their situation....

They can improve their situation by not covering theirselves all up, do we have any obligations to not let them screw up? No cookies for the unwilling. I don't want to ban these clothes, except the burkha, but no wealthfare when you dress up like a pinguin because you have chosen to not to be of any use to us, sort it out yourselve then, just because you were born doesn't mean you deserve to have a life.

I don't think you need to worry about a would-be-bomber hiding behind a burqa. If a suicide bomber decides to attack, he'll be clean shaven, dressed in the most casual western attire and would attract zero attention.

In a burkha he can attract zero attention much much easier, if something is going on, good luck finding out who is who where and when.

[rvg]

In a burkha he can attract zero attention much much easier, if something is going on, good luck finding out who is who where and when.

Yes, zero attention. In Afghanistan. Elsewhere, he/she will stick out like a sore thumb. The 9/11 attackers, the London bombers were all dressed in western clothes.

[Meneldil]

What the , I am terrified by some people's attitutude in this thread. What right do secular authorities have telling religious people what their beliefs are? Like the example where someone said covering the face is not in the Koran... I'm still pretty sure it's in the hadiths, which is why we don't see Shi'ite Iranian women wearing these veils... then again I could be wrong, which is why we should ask a Muslim and not try to tell them what they believe.

You are, at no point the Kuran specifically states that women should cover their face. It only became an issue with the emergence of islam as a way to create an identity (ie. early 20th).

In any case, you can ask whatever you want to 'muslims', I doubt you'll get any correct answer since every imam has his own ideas about what's correct and what's not, about what's orthodoxy and what's not. You have numerous muslim people claiming that at no point the Prophet asked women to wear veil or anything else, while you have other guys claiming that women shouldn't show any part of their body.

Furthermore, as I stated earlier, the secular authority have all rights to tell people what they should and shouldn't wear. They can believe in any kind of fairy tale crap they want, as long as it stays within the private sphere. The swimming pool is obviously not a private sphere. So goodbye burkas.
It is not, I repeat, it is not a private matter. It is a societal matter. Just like anything that bears some cultural value is not a private matter when you expose it on the public scene. Wearing religious symbols in public has been widely disregarded/prohibited for almost a century in France. Once again, it wasn't only done to discriminate catholics, but also to allow protestant, jews and eastern christians (mostly armenians) to live their religion freely. Said protestants, jews and other religious minorities mostly accepted the new rules with their pro's and con's. Muslims have to realize that, if they want their religion to be protected according to our laws, they have to abid to said laws, even when they don't like it.

As for Louis example, I don't think it works because the laws demanding you cover your private areas are quite reasonable, there's a reason why (most) native peoples living in exotic jungles still go to the trouble of covering them up, its human nature not a cultural thing that anyone is imposing. So as long as you are dressed in such a manner that you won't terrify people, it's up to you.

Seeing a women wearing a burka terrify me, and I'm dead serious. Does that make it a good reason to ban them?

And what is with the "burka's are denigrating to women" argument? So, are we going to liberate these women by telling them what they can and cannot do for their own good? Mummy state knows what is best for you, eh?

Mummy state doesn't know what's best for them, but it knows what's best for society. Allowing this kind of thing to happen is obviously not good for society, and more widely, for women. Once again, I suggest you do some readings on the french concept of laïcité, 1905, and things like that. If you don't like it, fine, nobody asked you to live in France. If they don't like it, they can move to England.

@Fragony. I unfortunately have never heard of a kid wearing a cross at school getting kicked out. You can either blame it on some ethnocentered/racist view (as in, catholics can wear their religious symbols, muslims cannot), or the fact that nobody cares about wearing a cross at school (deeply catholic people go to catholic private schools usually). I've never ever seen anyone wearing a cross, from elementary school to university.

[rvg]

Seeing a women wearing a burka terrify me, and I'm dead serious. Does that make it a good reason to ban them?.

The burqa ban essentially penalizes people for minding their own business. That is utterly unacceptable in a free society.

[Furunculus]

The burqa ban essentially penalizes people for minding their own business. That is utterly unacceptable in a free society.

agreed.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The burqa ban essentially penalizes people for minding their own business. That is utterly unacceptable in a free society.

This is France.

In America, there are laws governing public dress codes in public too. Mainly considering being covered up properly. In the privacy of your home, you can do as you please. On Times Square, you will get arrested for wearing nothing but a thong.
In France, there are laws too. You can not wear ostentatious religious symbols in certain places. Public religious display is not protected by freedom of religion. Yes, that sounds weird to Americans. And we for our part think America is a weird theocracy. Such is the nature of cultural differences. Papuans for their part, think we both are really weird.

Freedom of religion in America means that as soon as a person claims 'religion' as the reason for dress or behaviour, he is off the hook. In France, freedom of religion means that the government grants no privilidge to religion over other thought. That is, a Darth Vader suit is not allowed as swimming attire, a burkini is not either. Whereas in America, the latter could probably succesfully claim freedom of religion. That is, the believer in God is granted a governmental privilige over the believer in the force. One man's thoughts are better protected than another one's. That is utterly unacceptable in a free society.

I...agree with the French.

[rvg]

On Times Square, you will get arrested for wearing nothing but a thong.

Tell that to The Naked Cowboy.

[Furunculus]

What the , I am terrified by some people's attitutude in this thread.

i agree, but i don't want any legislation banning acts on discrimination* on the grounds of inability to trust.

* using the dictionary definition of the word.

[Viking]

This topic reminds me of

http://www.thelocal.se/20250/20090624/

Women in Malmö have been given the right to bathe topless in the swimming pools of Sweden's third largest city.

[...]

The Bara Bröst network swept to prominence in late 2007 after two bare-breasted young women were called ashore by a lifeguard at a swimming pool in Uppsala. When they refused to cover up, they were asked to leave the premises.

Speaking to The Local at the time, Ragnhild Karlsson, 22, explained the womens' motives for swimming without bikini tops.

"It's a question of equality. I think it's a problem that women are sexualized in this way. If women are forced to wear a top, shouldn't men also have to?"

Outraged by what they regarded as discrimination, a group of women in southern Sweden made a show of solidarity by establishing the network, whose name translates as both "bare breasts" and "just breasts".

This should be followed up by a ban, since bikinis reduces women's natural potential to be distinct individuals.

In many cultures that have never heard about feminism, women walking topless is considered the norm.

-

I think some of the fashion Louis linked to really is as manly as fashion theoretically can get; it's only banned because we live in misandric societies.