To Hijab or not to Hijab

[Gilrandir]

Constitution says all human beings are born and stay equal under the law.

One of the misconseptions I always object to. Let me quote Atticus Finch (To kill a mockingbird) on that:

Thomas Jefferson once said that all men are created equal, a phrase that the Yankees and the distaff side of the Executive branch in Washington are fond of hurling at us. There is a tendency in this year of grace, 1935, for certain people to use this phrase of context, to satisfy all conditions. The most ridiculous example I can think of is that people who run public education promote the stupid and idle along with the industrious—because all men are created equal, educators will gravely tell you, the children left behind suffer terrible feelings of inferiority. We know all men are not created equal in the sense some people would have us believe—some people are smarter than others, some people have more opportunity because they’re born with it, some men make more money than others, some ladies make better cake than others—some people are born gifted beyond the normal scope of men.

We should ban nonsense like the burka that interferes with the wellbeing of the general population.

I think in Russia being gay interferes with the wellbeing of the general population. Why is the West so persistent then about gays not "being banned" in Russia in any way?

"I know nobody brought up the hijab but I thought this was banned in France as well." Only in public places: The scarf is banned for civil servants, as we have a law separating state and religions. No civil servant is allowed to wear (obvious) religious symbols. You can wear a small cross, David star, hand of Fatima or the little bird for the Protestants (as they were banned to wear a Cross by the Catholic Kings of France, they took a bird as symbol, and it stays).
Burkas are banned.

And you call it democracy? Who determines the size of a symbol to ban it or to let it stay? A law? Or a strolling patrolman? If a law, how can, say, 5 cm cross be a symbol and, say, 7 cm - a flagrant violation of the separation the state from the church?

British culture doesn't demand much for an individual to be regarded as British. It doesn't even make the demand, although I think it should, that a UK citizen should think of themselves as British over some other entity.

So you would like to determine what others SHOULD THINK? Thought Police announces enrollment of the new eager employees?

[Husar]

So you would like to determine what others SHOULD THINK? Thought Police announces enrollment of the new eager employees?

While I would replace British with European, I generally agree with his sentiment and think you misinterpret what he is saying.
It's not about controlling what people think, but about not letting those stay who think the entire country should be changed or converted completely or who think that they are either above the law or can create their own laws against the law of the land and against human rights. I don't think that is evil thought control but perfectly justified in this case.

[Montmorency]

One of the misconseptions I always object to. Let me quote Atticus Finch (To kill a mockingbird) on that:

A dramatically-silly comment.

Aside from the fact that Brenus was referring to the French Constitution, any high-school student can tell you that Jefferson's statement was about the spiritual, moral, and political (above all, from the contemporary perspective) aspects of personhood.

[Pannonian]

While I would replace British with European, I generally agree with his sentiment and think you misinterpret what he is saying.
It's not about controlling what people think, but about not letting those stay who think the entire country should be changed or converted completely or who think that they are either above the law or can create their own laws against the law of the land and against human rights. I don't think that is evil thought control but perfectly justified in this case.

I wonder what Gilrandir thinks of those Ukrainian citizens who regard themselves as Russian rather than Ukrainian, and who've taken up arms against the country they were formerly a part of.

[Brenus]

“you have to be French” Nope. But you have to respect the French Constitution and laws.

“you are placing restrictions on freedoms.” As it can be said for you can’t go naked in front of a school.

“So uniformity and nationalism in schools and campus?” Uniforms at schools? Not in France… In England and US, perhaps, not in France. Please stop to be hypocritical. Clothes codes are imposed in every day jobs or places. Length of the dresses to shirts colours in offices. And no one have an objection about it. It seems only the religions want exemptions: can’t be criticised, can’t be offended, can’t be mocked etc.

“and i doubt the ban was imposed for that reason.” Yes it was. Some religious extremists tried to introduce (successfully) the scarf in schools, then by pure cowardice the then French Government gave the responsibility to the headmasters to decide what to do, when the law is clear enough.
This law was voted in 1904, so hardly aimed at Muslims.
Of course the religious fanatics took advantage of it until some did remind the law to the population, and finally enforced it.

“You know as well as I do they will never be truly French” , they WERE French before Savoie, until they earned a well-deserved independence. Stop clichés, please.
The battles for France by Muslims is quite easy to find on any research engines, and if there is one culture and customs that Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Malians and others former colonies or protectorates know is the French ones, as we speak the same language and had of lot of kids together.

“I actually think that hijabs can actually look very nice, that may also be a reason why some girls wear them” Agree, but as said before, it is not about fashion.

“One of the misconseptions I always object to” So you think that the law should discriminate? How and under which standards? To be different in strength or intelligence, or skin colours?

“Who determines the size of a symbol to ban it or to let it stay?” A decree in schools does exactly this, reason why young girls can’t wear too mini-skirts or too high heal, or can’t come bare chest in schools. It is as well call common-sense.
It is amazing how people do not realise how many regulations and clothing codes are actually enforced.

“If a law, how can, say, 5 cm cross be a symbol and, say, 7 cm - a flagrant violation of the separation the state from the church?” 5 cm would be too much, but yes, that is the principle. It is like make-up, you have to find the right balance. In everyday life, it works fine.

“And you call it democracy?” Yes. A democracy is a political construction ruled by laws voted by elected (less and less) men and women. The set of rules is not perfect and you don’t have to agree with them. However, you have to apply them. You might think it would be better to drive in the other side of the road, but you will have to obey the law.

[AE Bravo]

As it can be said for you can’t go naked in front of a school.

Now you are equating a modest attire to a violation of public decency. Let me rephrase, you are not allowing students to be free to wear a perfectly acceptable and not necessarily religious attire in school. This is imposing uniformity. The hijab is not religiously imposed as there is no centralized authority of that, the only imposition here is your law.

Yes it was.

You claimed earlier that the ban was imposed because the hijab represents a religion of racism, gender discrimination, and violence. This is not the reason it was banned and is irrelevant to the ban. It was banned because it is perceived to be religious period. Long beards, robes, and turbans aren't banned so you're only banning women's perceived "religious" attire.

, they WERE French before Savoie, until they earned a well-deserved independence. Stop clichés, please.

Moroccans are generally looked down upon in France. I must admit this is from personal experience. French people are cool but I remember walking by as a crew of them yelled, inviting my friends and I over for a drink at a festival when one salty girl sitting beside them brushed her hands in an uppity fashion saying “Morocco, Morocco,” with a nasty frown and I’m not even from Morocco. Of course we sat with them despite this buzzkill. I assume there is a noticeable stigma on these people as outsiders often, low-key of course. This isn’t only in France, it’s perfectly normal actually but there’s no attempt to strip them of an important part of their ethnic origins. These sort of decisions to ban a harmless personal preference (like punk, hip hop culture, someone mentioned satanist clothes earlier) devalues an attire common across cultures and ethnicities.

If any of the cities in the middle east imposed a dress code or headscarves on foreigners, they would instantly be hauled as fascist religious nuts. Imposing a ban is imposing a ban, especially in cases like this where something is completely personal. How does this law exactly prevent the racism you claim Islam contains (which there are no traces of btw)?

[Brenus]

"Let me rephrase, you are not allowing students to be free to wear a perfectly acceptable and not necessarily religious attire in school." Nope. A religious symbol is not allowed when you work as civil servant. The Islamic priests are claiming it is part of the religion, so logically, in place where strict religious neutrality is required, the scarf is banned. Sorry, but we can't start to ask women if they wear it for fashion, culture or religion purpose. Same for crosses, little birds, hands of Fatima and others.

The Burka is banned in all public places.

"Now you are equating a modest attire to a violation of public decency" All right. Last week, schools issued a warning about young girls rolling their belt shortening in doing so the length of it. So UK schools are not allowing students to be free to wear a perfectly and absolutely not religious attire in schools. Dis I hear shouts and outburst of rage against this diktat? Nope. It is because all societies and schools have dress codes. All imposed by patriarchal societies, you will notice.
For the same reason (almost) they are rules in swimming pools, and various places.
Only when religions are involved, and especially women clothing, it become a problem.

"which there are no traces of btw" Really? When you divide mankind between the ones who should rule because they follow a whatever, and others who can be killed, enslaved and/or having a inferior status, that is the definition of racism.

"How does this law exactly prevent the racism you claim Islam contains" Can't prevent crime by law either, but you can punish the ones doing it. You prevent racism, you can prevent to spread it openly, and prosecute the ones you can catch doing it.
So if a cleric preaches it is ok to kill gays, or relapses, or atheists, or to beat your wife until she submit, (do you want all the list of practices acceptable in the Koran and forbidden by the Convention of Human Rights, or is it enough?), you prosecute and punish.
It work for cultural sexual mutilation btw.

"one salty girl sitting beside them brushed her hands in an uppity fashion saying “Morocco, Morocco,” Oh, racism does exist in France. And the crisis doesn't improve things. The Fascist/Nazi are a big part in the Front National and Co. There are laws against them, but they quite clever in avoiding to be openly racist. But this is the advantage of the law. In France, to be racist is not an opinion, it is an offence. You can't control what people think, by you can punish what they are saying in public.
And inciting to violence or to break the law is prohibited.

[Kralizec]

Muslim culture is welcome as another eating culture, and source of harmless cultural quirks. Just like any other culture. It's not welcome as an alternative state.

This sums up my thoughts better and more briefly than anything else I've read or heard on the subject.

[AE Bravo]

Nope. A religious symbol is not allowed when you work as civil servant. The Islamic priests are claiming it is part of the religion, so logically, in place where strict religious neutrality is required, the scarf is banned.

And strict religious neutrality should be respected. France is iirc the only country that applies this totally. My issue is the dismissal of the fact that this is a violation of human rights and freedom, that you claim Islam is against. Whether or not it is religious freedom is irrelevant, freedom is the key word. Not saying it’s good or bad, but to ban something and call it a representation of religion, which has no place in the country, on the basis that it violates the things you mentioned is akin to Islam’s attitude towards non-religion. Both are against human rights and both are bigoted value judgements. It is a decision that obstructs freedom of expression (clothes) that does not interfere with liberal democratic values.

The justification of this law needs adjustment because making such an arbitrary connection between all of Islam's problems to the hijab is uninformed and hypocritical for practicing - not religious intolerance, but cultural intolerance.

All right. Last week, schools issued a warning about young girls rolling their belt shortening in doing so the length of it. So UK schools are not allowing students to be free to wear a perfectly and absolutely not religious attire in schools.

This is not an example of a cultural attire, it’s under the category of common courtesy or public modesty and perfectly fine. I was more referring to banning a culture, banning timbs and champion hoodies with baggy jeans, low pants, a pair of j’s, and snapbacks. This also stems from a culture that contains elements of misogyny, racism, and violence. Objects from patriarchal cultures can morph into expressions of freedom, equality, and overall trendy dopeness no problem.

Really? When you divide mankind between the ones who should rule because they follow a whatever, and others who can be killed, enslaved and/or having a inferior status, that is the definition of racism.

Sure it places itself on a pedestal, but not based on racial groups. So by definition it is not racism.

So if a cleric preaches it is ok to kill gays, or relapses, or atheists, or to beat your wife until she submit, (do you want all the list of practices acceptable in the Koran and forbidden by the Convention of Human Rights, or is it enough?), you prosecute and punish.

But my question was how does this ban against the hijab prevent racism. You condemn these things and the preachers, but why is the hijab thrown in there if it presents no threat to values and convention of human rights. This is all irrelevant, why would you bring it up other than to discredit a piece of cloth? You’re assuming that the hijab endorses these things but it doesn’t, just like a Raiders hat doesn’t promote violence or gang-related activities and sexism.

[Brenus]

"France is iirc the only country that applies this totally." So?

"My issue is the dismissal of the fact that this is a violation of human rights and freedom, that you claim Islam is against." As it is not. You are the one saying it is not a piece of Religion clothing. So, usual norms of office clothing apply at the leisure of the manager. Or, like it is claimed by the Muslim clergymen, it is part of Islam so the law on separation state/religion apply.
We have a saying in French: You can't have the cream, the money of the cream, and the smile of the shopkeeper, and it is exactely what you try to have.

"This is not an example of a cultural attire, it’s under the category of common courtesy or public modesty and perfectly fine." Why? Why cultural attire should have an exemption as well as religion? And why modesty should be considered? Why a women should be modest? Your restriction on freedom are larger than mine. Modesty? and what after?

"I was more referring to banning a culture, banning timbs and champion hoodies with baggy jeans, low pants, a pair of j’s, and snapbacks" Try to go to work in an office with all this, and you will see how much time it will take to the manager to call you in. Lots and lots of clothing and fashions are banned from places of work. So why the hidjab should be exempt of clothing regulations in work places?

"The justification of this law needs adjustment because making such an arbitrary connection between all of Islam's problems to the hijab is uninformed and hypocritical for practicing - not religious intolerance, but cultural intolerance." Well, explain this in the Mosques preaching that the hidjab is part of the requirements to be a good and obedient Muslim, then I will agree when they will. Until you succeed in doing so, I will accept the opinion of French Imams telling it is, so the hidjab will be ban in Public Offices.
And no law make a connection between all Islam's problems to the hidjab. The law voted in 1904 banned all religious symbols and uniforms for Public Servants and in Public Institution as schools. The law apply for the Sikhs, Muslims, Jews and others.

"But my question was how does this ban against the hijab prevent racism." And my answer was it doesn't. The law was passed in order to prevent discrimination based on religion. Racism is an other issue. The French lawmakers at that time passed this law against the Catholic Church. A bit too long to explain, but the idea was there are enough possibilities to segregate population without adding one that can be avoided.
If you don't know a person is Jew, or atheist, or whatever, you can't discriminate on these grounds. Simple, no?

"You’re assuming that the hijab endorses these things " Yes I do, but not the law. The law says no religious whatever in etc. The law applies, that why it is a law. Jews can't wear Kippa, too apparent religious symbols are forbidden.

"Sure it places itself on a pedestal, but not based on racial groups. So by definition it is not racism." By definition there is only one race of humans, other races being horses, cows, goats, pigs and others.
So we can play on wording if you want.
Jew is not a race, it is a religion, however the extermination of the Jews by the Nazi was based on a racist ideology. So is Islam. Or other religions, by the way.

[rvg]

Everything depends on the woman. If the woman is good looking, she should be obligated to walk around in a bikini. The fat and ugly ones must wear burkas.

[AE Bravo]

Why? Why cultural attire should have an exemption as well as religion? And why modesty should be considered? Why a women should be modest? Your restriction on freedom are larger than mine. Modesty? and what after?

This is a display of cultural intolerance towards forms of social discipline that value harmless modesty. When Muslim women collectively raise their middle fingers to hijab than that’s when it isn’t needed. When many women WANT it around that’s another issue. Why you trying to somehow champion their cause? Do you want to free Muslim women from shackles of religion or whatever? That must be what this is.

Why is a hijab so different from a necklace, an Allah tattoo, henna tattoos? I don’t see a ban on henna, which is described as a substance from heaven in Islam. This is clearly a religious thing, ban it also to be consistent at least.

Try to go to work in an office with all this, and you will see how much time it will take to the manager to call you in. Lots and lots of clothing and fashions are banned from places of work. So why the hidjab should be exempt of clothing regulations in work places?

These things can be seen as too immature in some workplaces. The hijab does not interfere with the professional environment in any way.

Well, explain this in the Mosques preaching that the hidjab is part of the requirements to be a good and obedient Muslim, then I will agree when they will.

I don’t disagree, these preachers should stfu. Unfortunately this is not happening. Their popularity can easily fall off as seen in other countries if they stop getting attention and tolerance from authorities. If efforts were done to crack down on these poopsmiths just as much as the zealous stripping of the hijab they will fall out of public favor. I guess that KSA oil money is needed there though.

Until you succeed in doing so, I will accept the opinion of French Imams telling it is, so the hidjab will be ban in Public Offices.

Why should you? This is again, a value judgement popularized by these imams. It shows a lack of understanding of the history of the clothing, set by contemporary preachers. It is fatwa-based, Saudi Arabia inspired political ideology. Again, that KSA oil money reigns supreme here again.

It’s interesting because in a few years from now KSA will not have the money to fund this nonsense and preachers will slowly vanish from the radar, leaving a huge void in Islam in the west for people with sense to fill in.

The law was passed in order to prevent discrimination based on religion. Racism is an other issue.

So the law is discriminatory first. That is okay, but you presented in a way that seemed that it was on the grounds that it violates human rights, baseless. You also went on about how the tenets of the faith violate the constitution, which they do, but somehow connect that with the hijab as if its banning was a result of this.

By definition there is only one race of humans, other races being horses, cows, goats, pigs and others.
So we can play on wording if you want.

There is no play on words, it’s pretty straightforward. Islam knows no race, the ideology does not promote one race’s exceptionalism. If goats ganged up on a pig cus he’s pink that’s racist. When a goat just can’t help but kill other goats for not having long enough goatees it's a non-racial offense.

[Brenus]

"harmless modesty" Excepted of course when a woman is stone to death because she is immodest in regards of the Islamic view on modesty. Funny, you never see a mob killing someone because they failed to wear a bikini. So modesty or the lack of can be deadly, far from harmless...
Ok, have to do, will be continued.

[Fragony]

"harmless modesty" Excepted of course when a woman is stone to death because she is immodest in regards of the Islamic view on modesty. Funny, you never see a mob killing someone because they failed to wear a bikini. So modesty or the lack of can be deadly, far from harmless...
Ok, have to do, will be continued.

Maybe in the sandlands, see no problem with a headscarve in the west, it's mostly just fashion. A niqaab or a burka is a different matter that is unacceptable.

[Gilrandir]

Aside from the fact that Brenus was referring to the French Constitution, any high-school student can tell you that Jefferson's statement was about the spiritual, moral, and political (above all, from the contemporary perspective) aspects of personhood.

Whatever Jefferson meant (or rather whatever interpretation of his words are thought to be fit for high school students' minds), I strongly object to anyone (including the French constitution) which fools people by calling them equal by birth.

I wonder what Gilrandir thinks of those Ukrainian citizens who regard themselves as Russian rather than Ukrainian, and who've taken up arms against the country they were formerly a part of.

My attitude didn't change: if you think yourself Russian as in "the citizen of Russia" - pack your suitcase, go to the railway station and buy a one-way ticket to the country of your dream. If you think yourself Russian as in "ethnic Russian but a citizen of Ukraine" - be my guest and make yourself at home.

As the developments have shown, Russians and Russian-speakers feel perfectly fine everywhere in Ukraine except in the places where Putin TV persuaded them that they don't.

“One of the misconseptions I always object to” So you think that the law should discriminate? How and under which standards? To be different in strength or intelligence, or skin colours?

The law shouldn't, but it equally shouldn't mislead the people saying things that aren't true.

A decree in schools does exactly this, reason why young girls can’t wear too mini-skirts or too high heal, or can’t come bare chest in schools. It is as well call common-sense.

“If a law, how can, say, 5 cm cross be a symbol and, say, 7 cm - a flagrant violation of the separation the state from the church?” 5 cm would be too much, but yes, that is the principle. It is like make-up, you have to find the right balance. In everyday life, it works fine.

"Too mini", "too high", "common sense", "too much" and "right balance" are not juridical terms. If this is the way the decree (and law) you mention words it, than one might as well disregard either.

A law or an ordinance must be precise, otherwise there will be a mess, both on the part of those who enforce it and those who are supposed to abide by it.

But in any case, determining the size of decoration one wears is ridiculous and fraught with consequences, like eventually determining the type of books one reads or foods one eats - just to find the right balance and abide by common sense.

“And you call it democracy?” Yes. A democracy is a political construction ruled by laws voted by elected (less and less) men and women. The set of rules is not perfect and you don’t have to agree with them. However, you have to apply them. You might think it would be better to drive in the other side of the road, but you will have to obey the law.

Does the driving law you refer to say: "you are to drive where common sense tells you, not too much to the right or too much to the left, just find a right balance"?
Precision of wording is crucial.

[Beskar]

Everything depends on the woman. If the woman is good looking, she should be obligated to walk around in a bikini. The fat and ugly ones must wear burkas.

Good to see you're staying classy.

[Brenus]

"There is no play on words, it’s pretty straightforward. Islam knows no race, the ideology does not promote one race’s exceptionalism." Yes it does. .
Muslims are at the top, religions from the book are allowed to live if they accept a subordinate level, they can be oppressed, and sold as slaves, the others religions have to be killed. Look really like Nazism for me. Just change Muslims by Aryans.
Or will you carry on pretending that Nazism was not a racist ideology?

"them equal by birth" Because you missed the important part: In front of the law.

"Too mini", "too high", "common sense", "too much" and "right balance" are not juridical terms." Yes they are. As maximum and minimum. Judges used these notions in every day judgement and recommendations to juries.

"A law or an ordinance must be precise, otherwise there will be a mess, both on the part of those who enforce it and those who are supposed to abide by it." Wrong again I afraid. You have the law, the spirit of the law, and that is why sentences are dealt with Judges and not by computers, e.i. poor taking food from a bin is technically a theft, however few judges will sentence them on this charge.

"But in any case, determining the size of decoration one wears is ridiculous and fraught with consequences" Agree. The law is clear enough. No sign of religion obedience in place where strict neutrality is required.

"Does the driving law you refer to say: "you are to drive where common sense tells you, not too much to the right or too much to the left, just find a right balance"?" In fact yes, as you are allowed to cross on the other side to avoid a danger or an unexpected event (bicycles, child running after his ball, etc). Common sense in action.

"Why should you?" Ah, that is the other side of the separation between State and Religions: The State doesn't tell the Religions what to believe and how and who to worship, when they follow the law.

"be my guest and make yourself at home." It is their home. Nice from you to welcome them in their home

[AE Bravo]

Well first off the stoning sentence is not for refusing to wear a hijab. The hijab is currently the most prominent headscarf for Muslim women, Saudi Arabia or countries with an Al Qaeda presence see it as a heretical fashion statement. Stoning comes from an awful Hadith, and most Arabs/Muslims ignore it.

I was hoping you wouldn’t refer to the typical Islamophobic defense mechanism, it was going well.

There is no Aryan equivalent in Islam. Any race can be Muslim so it is ideological exceptionalism/discrimination, not racism at all. Old Testament garbage that is dated.

[Tuuvi]

Funnily enough, even ISIS brags about how racially tolerant it is in its propaganda. Discriminating based on religion isn't the same thing as discriminating based on race.

[Brenus]

"There is no Aryan equivalent in Islam" What about Muslim? Fitting well IMO. Muslims at the top, all others under the heel, summit or/and die.

"Funnily enough, even ISIS brags about how racially tolerant it is in its propaganda." Yeap and Nazi made beautiful movie about how the Jews were happy in their new settlements. They even had an orchestra... So Isis doesn't kill Christians and Jews... Nice to hear it.

"Discriminating based on religion isn't the same thing as discriminating based on race." This needs a little of explanation. Yes, you can convert. But it is the same principals. One above the others, and kill/oppress the others. I can't see any difference.

"Islamophobic defense mechanism" And this the typical Muslim Fanatic extremist defense when cornered. See, I can do it as well.
Then you have to tell me what is wrong to fear a religion, or to hate a religion? Religion are concepts, so I can hate or fear racism (you mixes with xenophobia), freedom, democracy, dictatorship etc. Why religions should be exempted? To be fair, yes I do hate the lack of democracy, the open discrimination, gender inequality, food prohibition, mind control, promotion of violence, promotion of slavery, call to murders, oppression of others recommended in holly books. Christianity and Jewish faith have been tamed by the Enlightenment and hundred years of Religious wars.
So it is perhaps time for Muslim Scholars to recognise (and some do exactly this) it. And it is time to educate the Muslim faithfuls of what is really the Koran, and to put a stop on legends.
As soon as the Imam will tell hat the Koran was not written directly but years after "God" dictated to the prophet, that as the Christians for the New Testament, the scholars choose what should be in it, that later, new scholars decide what was Islamic or not. Then we will start to make progress.
But of course the Muslim Clergy in majority doesn't want this. First of all, because themselves don't know it. And the ones who know don't want to loose power in the masses.

[rvg]

Good to see you're staying classy.

I'm here all week.

On a serious note, I just find it utterly ridiculous that a bunch of males are discussing the dress code for women. It's none of our goddamn business, they can wear whatever they want, even if it's a sack, as long as that is their choice.

[AE Bravo]

This needs a little of explanation. Yes, you can convert. But it is the same principals. One above the others, and kill/oppress the others. I can't see any difference.

Thus not racism. You do not know the meaning of the word, and it is misleading to describe it as racist when it does not discriminate based on racial group. Forget everything, we’re talking about the word here and you used it in a misleading way.

Dunno what you’re talking about. I gave you the courtesy of answering all your points, you didn’t. I honestly don’t want to defend Islam to you because I don’t believe it needs defending, I just brought up a dress code and the pathetic fear of it. You were the one who took this discussion to Islam. No interest sorry, talking about Islam in a total sense is boring. If I was a fanatic, I would not have said that the stoning hadith was awful and the prophet was a total dick in it either.

Never lied either. You keep bringing up irrelevant isht like stoning to a garment.

And it is time to educate the Muslim faithfuls of what is really the Koran, and to put a stop on legends.

My hero. Edumacate me please.

On a serious note, I just find it utterly ridiculous that a bunch of males are discussing the dress code for women. It's none of our goddamn business, they can wear whatever they want, even if it's a sack, as long as that is their choice.

Out of all the bs in Islam people get butthurt about this the most, so it is utterly ridiculous. Apparently they can't wear whatever they want.

[Gilrandir]

"Too mini", "too high", "common sense", "too much" and "right balance" are not juridical terms." Yes they are. As maximum and minimum. Judges used these notions in every day judgement and recommendations to juries.

"A law or an ordinance must be precise, otherwise there will be a mess, both on the part of those who enforce it and those who are supposed to abide by it." Wrong again I afraid. You have the law, the spirit of the law, and that is why sentences are dealt with Judges and not by computers, e.i. poor taking food from a bin is technically a theft, however few judges will sentence them on this charge.

Again I strongly doubt the usage of such vague terms in a law. So I would dearly like you to quote the decoration law to see the wording of it.

As for enforcing the law: each time one is spotted wearing a decoration some decoration supervisor submits a complaint to the jury and they pass a verdict of wearable/nonwearable? I don't think this is the way it is.

I believe that usually when someone is dissatisfied with another wearing something unacceptable he complains to the line manager or some other boss and the boss just tells the alleged perpetrator to take the thing off. The same, I believe, happens at school with the principal acting as executioner, judge and jury.

But such orders again should be based on some legally stipulated size otherwise they are arbitrary which again brings us to the neccessity of quoting the law in question.

"Does the driving law you refer to say: "you are to drive where common sense tells you, not too much to the right or too much to the left, just find a right balance"?" In fact yes, as you are allowed to cross on the other side to avoid a danger or an unexpected event (bicycles, child running after his ball, etc). Common sense in action.

These are VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW which are justified by an emergency. And the latter is questionable. What if you drive to the other side of the road to avoid hitting a child running after the ball and collide with another car killing the driver? Would the judge praise you for saving the kid or condemn you for killing another driver?

I spoke of the LAW ITSELF which clearly orders you to drive on one side of the road only.

"be my guest and make yourself at home." It is their home. Nice from you to welcome them in their home

This idiom was used here in the meaning "there are no hostilities toward you (singular or plural) here" with no reference to ANY home.

To be fair, yes I do hate the lack of democracy, the open discrimination, gender inequality, mind control, promotion of violence, call to murders, oppression of others recommended in holly books.

And by Marxism-Leninism as well.

[Brenus]

"Never lied either. You keep bringing up irrelevant isht like stoning to a garment." Not me. It is a practice in some Countries where the Islamic Law is enforced. So, if the garment is not in Islam, why the women are killed?
You are the one ho in one hand say the ban is islamophobic and the one say the garment is not Islamic.

"You do not know the meaning of the word, and it is misleading to describe it as racist when it does not discriminate based on racial group" Nazi kill the Jews, and it is a religion as you can convert to an other religion. Didn't stop the Nazi to kill the Jews. I give you this one is tricky, as notion of racism is tricky.
In reality, it just make no difference. Religions discriminate, segregate, kill and oppress.

"And by Marxism-Leninism as well." Some did. Well observed.

"I don't think this is the way it is." You are right.

"I don’t believe it needs defending" Hmm, interesting point of view.

"Again I strongly doubt the usage of such vague terms in a law." You might but you are wrong. Read what I wrote. When the Judge in his/her summary, said that juries have to agree "beyond doubts", can you quantify? I can't. Nor I can measure a doubt btw.

"But such orders again should be based on some legally stipulated size otherwise they are arbitrary which again brings us to the neccessity of quoting the law in question." Yes, just go in a internal code of clothing in any company, or schools, and they provide length, colours and other style you are allowed to wear at work. In UK, schools have uniforms, and no ones seems to care too much. Just it seems the religious stipulation has more power in UK than in France. They even different helmets in the Police to make sure than Sikhs, Muslim and others can be recognised immediately, then they complain about discrimination.

"These are VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW which are justified by an emergency" No, there are not. If you kill a kid running after his ball then pretext of the respect of the law for doing it, you will find out it is not a lawful argument.

[AE Bravo]

Not me. It is a practice in some Countries where the Islamic Law is enforced. So, if the garment is not in Islam, why the women are killed?
You are the one ho in one hand say the ban is islamophobic and the one say the garment is not Islamic.

I just told you that not covering is not punishable by stoning or death. Stoning is not relevant to this issue, there is no reason to try to reinforce your point by using stoning.
It's Islamophobic in the sense that it shows a lack of understanding of different communities that happen to be Muslim. Covering your head is not a symbol of oppression. I can't think up of a reason why this bothers people so much other than their thirsty asses thinking for some reason they can't get in her pants if she's wearing one. That's just not true. I know a few (openly) hoes that wear a niqab.

Did I mention that not wearing stuff on your head is not punishable by stoning?

[Pannonian]

I just told you that not covering is not punishable by stoning or death. Stoning is not relevant to this issue, there is no reason to try to reinforce your point by using stoning.
It's Islamophobic in the sense that it shows a lack of understanding of different communities that happen to be Muslim. Covering your head is not a symbol of oppression. I can't think up of a reason why this bothers people so much other than their thirsty asses thinking for some reason they can't get in her pants if she's wearing one. That's just not true. I know a few (openly) hoes that wear a niqab.

Did I mention that not wearing stuff on your head is not punishable by stoning?

The niqab should be banned, for the same reason as the burka. Covering the head is ok. Covering the face is not. The argument may be very slightly different if it's a garment with a significant history in the host country. But it's a garment introduced from abroad, so it doesn't have that saving grace. I wouldn't mind if balaclava helmets are banned either for the same reason. A scarf over the face to keep warm is acceptable outdoors when it may be required. Once indoors, which is when identification of individuals is required as a society, there is no reason to keep the face obscured.

No good reason anyway. Those guys who tried to rob a jewellery store in burkas just confirmed my dislike of clothing designed to obscure identification of individuals.

[rvg]

The niqab should be banned, for the same reason as the burka. Covering the head is ok. Covering the face is not...

What's wrong with covering one's face?

[Pannonian]

What's wrong with covering one's face?

Because I can't see who you are? Or in the case of the guys above, what they are.

[rvg]

Because I can't see who you are? Or in the case of the guys above, what they are.

Why do you need to see who I am?

[Pannonian]

Why do you need to see who I am?

See above. Why are you obscuring your features in a society that sees openness as an essential part of social intercourse? The niqab doesn't (yet) have the associations of the balaclava, the hoodie or the burka. All of those have the common theme; they obscure the individual's features, and mark them out as troublemakers. Reflective shades mark one out as an arrogant a-hole, and for the related reason; they obscure one's eyes.