Animals & Nature1 min ago
France's burka ban
220 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/6gqmpsn
Well done the French for having the guts to introduce the 'burka ban', but it seems with a little trepidation.
/// Earlier, French police said they will be enforcing the country’s new burka ban "extremely cautiously" because of fears of provoking violence. ///
Belgium introduced a full ban last year, and a ban also looks likely in Holland, Spain and Switzerland.
Could Britain ever have the guts to do likewise?
Well done the French for having the guts to introduce the 'burka ban', but it seems with a little trepidation.
/// Earlier, French police said they will be enforcing the country’s new burka ban "extremely cautiously" because of fears of provoking violence. ///
Belgium introduced a full ban last year, and a ban also looks likely in Holland, Spain and Switzerland.
Could Britain ever have the guts to do likewise?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I agree with Birdie to an extent, although my knowledge of the situation is limited, it does seem that wearing of the burka is down to an oppression of the liberties the women in that culture. That said, it is their culture. It is not our job to 'tell them how it should be done'. In doing that we would only be convincing them further that 'the arrogant west is trying to white-wash Islam'. That's not the way to do things.
If there's a deep routed culture of misogeny in any society, then this must be addressed at the source rather than just banning an effect, and it can only really effectively be addressed by themselves, by their peers and their superiors.
If there's a deep routed culture of misogeny in any society, then this must be addressed at the source rather than just banning an effect, and it can only really effectively be addressed by themselves, by their peers and their superiors.
Sqad - that's the crux of it isn't it -'the suspicion' that Islam is intent on taking over the West.
Leaving aside the constant flame-fanning to sell newspapers, and looking at the evidence - isn't it likely that Islam would have mave rather more of an impact than has been evidenced thus far?
On the basis of evidence backed by facts, you'd have a far stronger case for saying the drinks industry is hell-bent on making a generation into alcohol abusers - and you;d have the evidence to back up your claim.
But honestly - a few extremeists who receive far more publicity than their nonsense deserves simnply feeds the national paranoia.
It is human instinct to be wary of 'interlopers' - there are 'invasion' theories everywhere - remember the communist 'takeover' in the 1970's - America lost a war and a significant swathe of its young people beacuse the politicians pursuaded everyone that comunism was intent on taking iver the western world, and what happened? Nothing happened, but the media and politicians had a field day making poeple fearful enough to fight against an enemy that did no in reality exist.
How much serious copper-bottomed evidence of a 'takeover' by Islam is there in the UK?
Not what the media or the policitians say there is, but what we can see with our own eyes?
I suggest that this is suspicion and paranois being used to opress a cultural preference under the disguise of it being evidence of something wider and more sinister, which it patently is not.
Calm down Briatain - no one is really out to get you, it's all in your parochial suspicious elitist condesending empire-mourning small mind!
Leaving aside the constant flame-fanning to sell newspapers, and looking at the evidence - isn't it likely that Islam would have mave rather more of an impact than has been evidenced thus far?
On the basis of evidence backed by facts, you'd have a far stronger case for saying the drinks industry is hell-bent on making a generation into alcohol abusers - and you;d have the evidence to back up your claim.
But honestly - a few extremeists who receive far more publicity than their nonsense deserves simnply feeds the national paranoia.
It is human instinct to be wary of 'interlopers' - there are 'invasion' theories everywhere - remember the communist 'takeover' in the 1970's - America lost a war and a significant swathe of its young people beacuse the politicians pursuaded everyone that comunism was intent on taking iver the western world, and what happened? Nothing happened, but the media and politicians had a field day making poeple fearful enough to fight against an enemy that did no in reality exist.
How much serious copper-bottomed evidence of a 'takeover' by Islam is there in the UK?
Not what the media or the policitians say there is, but what we can see with our own eyes?
I suggest that this is suspicion and paranois being used to opress a cultural preference under the disguise of it being evidence of something wider and more sinister, which it patently is not.
Calm down Briatain - no one is really out to get you, it's all in your parochial suspicious elitist condesending empire-mourning small mind!
-- answer removed --
andy
<<<<<<<<I suggest that this is suspicion and paranois being used to opress a cultural preference under the disguise of it being evidence of something wider and more sinister, which it patently is not.
Calm down Briatain - no one is really out to get you, it's all in your parochial suspicious elitist condesending empire-mourning small mind!>>>>>>>>
You eggs are all in one basket...........I hope you are right.
<<<<<<<<I suggest that this is suspicion and paranois being used to opress a cultural preference under the disguise of it being evidence of something wider and more sinister, which it patently is not.
Calm down Briatain - no one is really out to get you, it's all in your parochial suspicious elitist condesending empire-mourning small mind!>>>>>>>>
You eggs are all in one basket...........I hope you are right.
-- answer removed --
Pixi - “I asked one of them birdie..... she is the only female in the family who covers her face..... she just said its personal choice and she sees no reason why her face needs to be seen in public...... she also said some people judge another too quickly on what they look like without looking past a face and seeing whats inside them ....think she means it doesnt matter what a person looks like on the outside, its whats inside that matters.”
On the whole, I would agree with your friend's statement. I cannot argue against the fact that some people do indeed make judgements about others based upon the way someone looks. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago there was a story about an ignorant, violent moron who physically attacked another person in my home town purely because she had a facial disfigurement. Your friend's statement about it not being important what you look like, it's what's inside that counts is absolutely correct.
On the whole, I would agree with your friend's statement. I cannot argue against the fact that some people do indeed make judgements about others based upon the way someone looks. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago there was a story about an ignorant, violent moron who physically attacked another person in my home town purely because she had a facial disfigurement. Your friend's statement about it not being important what you look like, it's what's inside that counts is absolutely correct.
Continued...
However, your friend while making some valid points, also seems to be missing a few too. While it is perfectly permissible and an accepted part British culture to wear a 'mask' in order to appear to be someone else to entertain an audience, it is not generally acceptable in everyday life to cover one's face. Some of the reasons for this are cultural and some are obviously security related.
The most obvious argument against covering your face when speaking to someone is that it is disconcerting for an 'un-masked' person to talk to a 'masked' person. When people talk about having debates with others we use the term 'face to face'. The reason being that none verbal communication makes up anywhere between 55 and 93 percent (depending on the study) of the sum total of communication. The likelihood is that your friend may well be perceived quite differently from what she assumes.
There is also a glaring inconsistency with your friend's argument when you state, “... she also said some people judge another too quickly on what they look like...”. The inconsistency being that some people will judge her and assume negative things about her precisely because she is covering her face – which kind of makes the wearing of this garment counter productive in this regard.
However, your friend while making some valid points, also seems to be missing a few too. While it is perfectly permissible and an accepted part British culture to wear a 'mask' in order to appear to be someone else to entertain an audience, it is not generally acceptable in everyday life to cover one's face. Some of the reasons for this are cultural and some are obviously security related.
The most obvious argument against covering your face when speaking to someone is that it is disconcerting for an 'un-masked' person to talk to a 'masked' person. When people talk about having debates with others we use the term 'face to face'. The reason being that none verbal communication makes up anywhere between 55 and 93 percent (depending on the study) of the sum total of communication. The likelihood is that your friend may well be perceived quite differently from what she assumes.
There is also a glaring inconsistency with your friend's argument when you state, “... she also said some people judge another too quickly on what they look like...”. The inconsistency being that some people will judge her and assume negative things about her precisely because she is covering her face – which kind of makes the wearing of this garment counter productive in this regard.
Frank Skinner discussed the matter of the Burka on his TV show last night, and he suggested that instead of the rather frightening sight of the long flowing black robes, perhaps it would be better for those Muslim women who wish to cover their faces, to wear Disney type masks, much more pleasing to the eyes.
I await all the complaints of racism.
I await all the complaints of racism.
-- answer removed --
Personally AOG, I would object to that, I can't stand Disney ;-)
Interesting though that this discussion - whilst extremely valid, and I have read all of it - centres on the one faith. Nobody is objecting to Hassidic Jews wearing long locks of hair, or keeping their hats on at all time - which I understand is THEIR religious requirement. I was brought up to believe that a polite man takes off their hat indoors, so we could have a similar discussion about why they don't. It's not the same, but that is a religious requirement which over the years we have come to accept. Similarly, many Orthodox Jewish women wear a wig, it is forbidden to them to show their own hair. I guess because it still looks "normal" to the general population, nobody kicks off about repression of these Jewish ladies?
Interesting though that this discussion - whilst extremely valid, and I have read all of it - centres on the one faith. Nobody is objecting to Hassidic Jews wearing long locks of hair, or keeping their hats on at all time - which I understand is THEIR religious requirement. I was brought up to believe that a polite man takes off their hat indoors, so we could have a similar discussion about why they don't. It's not the same, but that is a religious requirement which over the years we have come to accept. Similarly, many Orthodox Jewish women wear a wig, it is forbidden to them to show their own hair. I guess because it still looks "normal" to the general population, nobody kicks off about repression of these Jewish ladies?
boxtops
I understand where you are coming from but, Muslim women are not obliged to wear the Burka because it is a requirement of their religion.
Hats, wigs or hair styles etc, do not hide the identity of the wearers, and therefore are not so intimidating.
But by all means start a separate thread on different religious dress, but this particular thread is about the Burka.
I understand where you are coming from but, Muslim women are not obliged to wear the Burka because it is a requirement of their religion.
Hats, wigs or hair styles etc, do not hide the identity of the wearers, and therefore are not so intimidating.
But by all means start a separate thread on different religious dress, but this particular thread is about the Burka.
" ... instead of the rather frightening sight of the long flowing black robes ..."
Seriously? Are people honestly intimidated by a woman wearing flowing robes becase the can't see her face?
I suggest such individuals start acting like adults!
What happens if a burka-wearing woman goes 'Boo!' at them - an instant trouser catastrophe??
Come on, let's be real here.
Seriously? Are people honestly intimidated by a woman wearing flowing robes becase the can't see her face?
I suggest such individuals start acting like adults!
What happens if a burka-wearing woman goes 'Boo!' at them - an instant trouser catastrophe??
Come on, let's be real here.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Mass Graves Found In Khan Younis
News6 mins ago
This Talk Of The Economy On A War...
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Crosswords14 mins ago
