Islamophobia on the rise?

Denerick

With France banning the veil, Switzerland banning the minaret, and several countries considering a raft of anti-Islamic legislation, is it fair to suggest that Europe is in the throes of an authoritarian revolution?

It is no surprise that these measures coincide with the rise of the far right in many countries and in the context of continental economic catastrophe. I fear for the future of mainland Europe, I really do. I can't help but feel we're beginning to see the end of the Liberal era and the beginning of a reactionary little Europe-ism.

Eliot Rosewater

I agree. Tolerance seems to be on the way out. I once viewed organised Atheists as a mild curiosity, but the Burqa ban debacle has exposed many of them to be just as willing to curtail personal liberty for their ends as the people they oppose.

I fear for the future. The legislation so far, banning burqa's, minarets, head shops etc, hasn't affected me directly as yet. I wonder when it will.

Denerick

Britain has shown that the only way to deal with the far right is to show some balls. Voters respect balls. In France, The Netherlands and Austria the mainstream parties pander to far right voters in order to win over a few of their votes and annul much of the damage they can do. This won't work. The BNP crashed and burned at the last election because the mainstream parties didn't pander to the far right. Voters learnt to have no respect for these monsters and they voted accordingly.

The banning of the veil is the most disgusting legislation to take place in Europe since the Jews were forced to wear the Star of David in Nazi Germany. Absolutely despicable. How chauvinistic is it for governments, policemen, and dads army bigots telling women what they can wear? I'd take ten angry bearded radical Imam's over one of these self righteous new age hippies telling women what they can and can't wear.

diddley

You mean they're not tolerating the intolerant? OMG..............

simonj

Who the f*ck came up with the term Islamophobia?
Anyway, tolerance works both ways. Sad thing is the entire cartoon fiasco was due more to a power struggle within the Danish muslim community rather than igdignation at the actual cartoons.
I am always amused at all religions who tell us our reward is in the next life, when they themselves all seem rather keen to get power and wealth in this one.
In this country our blasphemy law is stupid, they enacted it - with all the costs that entails, at the same time saying they would never use it?

A person can wear what the hell they want, and at the same time in a mixed, largely secular society, if someone makes a cartoon, or writes a book you dont like - provided it is not hate speech, deal with it.

Eliot Rosewater

Exactly (to Denerick's post). The irony is that one of the main justifications for the ban is that it will stop oppression. In reality, forcing the entire population to dress a certain way is far worse than one tiny minority being forced to dress a certain way. That burqa ban supporters can't see this proves to me that this isn't about oppression or women's rights at all. It is, quite simply, about being against Islam.

Time Magazine had a great (if small) article condemning the ban. It concluded with " If Burqa wearing women are forced to reveal their faces, will people like Cope [French assembly majority leader and supporter of the Burqa ban] hide theirs, in shame?"

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=67028864#post67028864

caseyann

As i keep saying,women are brought up with it so how do they know if they want to wear it or not?Fear and control and brain washing instills this in those women,and again its not called for in Islam.It is a male thing to control the women,if in the desert i would understand it protect them from the dust etc.. but as its for men to keep their women completely isolated only from those they choose are allowed to be around them.I would say its oppression.Its refreshing they are banning it and if they don't like it,let them go where its allowed.

Mahatma coat

The 'Far Right' is not some Curiosity that Other partys Pander to to get a few Extra Votes, as can bee seen form the number of Elected Representatives of Right Leaning Parties across Europe in recent Years, People Vote for the Candidate that most espouses their Values and beliefs. Even with the Posturing of Main Stream Parties in Britain at the Last Election the BNP got Griffin Elected as an MEP.

That would suggest a Growing Mandate to me.

simonj

There is nothing about the veil/Nihab/Burqua et al in the Koran, it is local custom - the full cover was a cultural rather than religious concept exported during the expansion of the Caliphate from the Arabian peninsula.

Other monoathiestic sects from Asia minor also had this idea, lok at the Nuns FFS.

No one should be told what they can or cannot wear, by anyone.

Eliot says - if I may paraphrase "The irony is that one of the main justifications for the ban is that it will stop oppression. In reality, forcing the entire population to dress a certain way is far worse than one tiny minority being forced to dress a certain way"

I would disagree in the sense I find both options equally odious.

If a person decides to cover themselves up, of their own free volition, then that is their business - but they should never be forced to - no more than being forced to walk around naked, its the same thing for me.

caseyann

simonj wrote: »

There is nothing about the veil/Nihab/Burqua et al in the Koran, it is local custom - the full cover was a cultural rather than religious concept exported during the expansion of the Caliphate from the Arabian peninsula.

Other monoathiestic sects from Asia minor also had this idea, lok at the Nuns FFS.

No one should be told what they can or cannot wear, by anyone.

Eliot says - if I may paraphrase "The irony is that one of the main justifications for the ban is that it will stop oppression. In reality, forcing the entire population to dress a certain way is far worse than one tiny minority being forced to dress a certain way"

I would disagree in the sense I find both options equally odious.

If a person decides to cover themselves up, of their own free volition, then that is their business - but they should never be forced to - no more than being forced to walk around naked, its the same thing for me.

Yeah but if you are forced from child age and instilled in you,thats not freedom of choice.

simonj

Mahatma coat wrote: »

in Britain at the Last Election the BNP got Griffin Elected as an MEP.

That would suggest a Growing Mandate to me.

That was a knee jerk reaction to an unpopular and overly PC touchy feely government who bomb Muslims in the east, but insist we tolerate the most vile clerics in Europe, and the BNP - quite rightly - colapsed in the General election.

Because of the democratic deficit that exists between the EU parliament and the electorate, the EU vote is used as a protest of sorts, returning people like the BNP, UKIP and our own Dana

Mahatma coat

Look they want to be different, and thats not allowed, we had a few decades there of the thing gettin out of hand with this Liberal Freespirited malarky, but Time and time again the People of Europe show that what they want is Conformity and Homoginisation, So if thats what they want and these Acts are passed by Majority consent then thats what they Get.

remember that 'THEY' are Differnet to 'US' ands as such should be feared and outright avoided where possible.

We'll have none of this opressive Mysoginy in Free Europe.

No Minarets with their Incessent call to Prayer, We have Steeples and the Angellus

No Forcin Wimmin to wear Burkhas, We have Nuns in Habbits for that.

No Sharia Law, Anyone old enought to remember 'Holy Catholic Ireland??'


What it boils down to is We have enough of our own Batsh1tcrazy religious Fundamentalist without Impoorting more.

coletti

Denerick wrote: »

The banning of the veil is the most disgusting legislation to take place in Europe since the Jews were forced to wear the Star of David in Nazi Germany. Absolutely despicable. How chauvinistic is it for governments, policemen, and dads army bigots telling women what they can wear? I'd take ten angry bearded radical Imam's over one of these self righteous new age hippies telling women what they can and can't wear.

Your analogy is emotive but, alas, inaccurate. Many Mulsim women come under a lot of pressure for their menfolk to wear the burka. They even come under pressure from their womenfolk to wear it.

We live in a society which believes in freedom, and in a society where we dislike that Muslim women are often denied the same freedoms as everyone else by their male dominated structures.

What we have to realise is that many muslim structures result in intolerance and denials of freedoms we take for granted. We already know how intolerant muslim societies are in other countries where they insist all women cover their hair, legs and shoulders.

While it might appear to be intolerant to some to be prevented wearing the burka in certain situations, for others who might otherwise be forced to wear it as a result of pressure form their society it will be a relief.

Jack Straw, the former UK Home Secretary, made a valuable point that he found it very difficuly, if not impossible, to communicate with muslim women he met when he wasn't able to see any part of their face.

As with most issues, there are two sides to this one, and our instinct is not to ban anything. However we live in a society where we must stand up for the freedoms of these women against the oppression of their society which pressures them to wear the burka.

Our society fought for womens rights many years ago, and I am uneasy to see women again being forced, or even believing it is their own decision, to want to wear the burka. No Muslim man wants to wear it, and our society believes in equality and rights for all.

irishconvert

caseyann wrote: »

Yeah but if you are forced from child age and instilled in you,thats not freedom of choice.

What if they choose to wear it themself?
What about an Irish convert to Islam who decides she wants to wear it?

Denerick

coletti wrote: »

Your analogy is emotive but, alas, inaccurate. Many Mulsim women come under a lot of pressure for their menfolk to wear the burka. They even come under pressure from their womenfolk to wear it.

We live in a society which believes in freedom, and in a society where we dislike that Muslim women are often denied the same freedoms as everyone else by their male dominated structures.

What we have to realise is that many muslim structures result in intolerance and denials of freedoms we take for granted. We already know how intolerant muslim societies are in other countries where they insist all women cover their hair, legs and shoulders.

While it might appear to be intolerant to some to be prevented wearing the burka in certain situations, for others who might otherwise be forced to wear it as a result of pressure form their society it will be a relief.

Jack Straw, the former UK Home Secretary, made a valuable point that he found it very difficuly, if not impossible, to communicate with muslim women he met when he wasn't able to see any part of their face.

As with most issues, there are two sides to this one, and our instinct is not to ban anything. However we live in a society where we must stand up for the freedoms of these women against the oppression of their society which pressures them to wear the burka.

Our society fought for womens rights many years ago, and I am uneasy to see women again being forced, or even believing it is their own decision, to want to wear the burka. No Muslim man wants to wear it, and our society believes in equality and rights for all.

How do you decide which women are forced to wear and which wear it of their own free will? A blanket ban is much more oppresive than the occasional girl who is forced to wear it by her father. Anyway, laws can be introduced to tackle that, just as they can for any kind of spousal/parental abuse. That really is a non argument.

More importantly, how do you enforce the legislation? The Tory immigration minister was on question time last night and I found myself agreeing with him (Losing my soul in the process) Do you really want to see policemen arresting women wearing the burkha down the high street? The very concept of such a clothing ban is preposterous.

Denerick

simonj wrote: »

There is nothing about the veil/Nihab/Burqua et al in the Koran, it is local custom - the full cover was a cultural rather than religious concept exported during the expansion of the Caliphate from the Arabian peninsula.

I am aware it is not required by Islam. Some women make the choice to cover their faces in public in a show of modesty and piety. It is not my business (A white agnostic) to tell them (A brown muslim) That that veil 'is not required' under Islam.

Cookie_Monster

If you go to a Muslim country there are all sort of laws banning all sorts of "non Muslim" things (booze, crosses, public displays of affection, women having rights etc) and they are not toleration of any "western" customs in their face.

I don't see why Europe shouldn't take the exact opposite view.

Islam is a disgusting religion (they all are) and I fully support any law banning any aspect of it or other religions nonsense. The French have it right, working towards banning not only Islamic symbols but Christian crosses and the like aswell.

Pity Spain decided not to go ahead with it. Of course Ireland being the "pander to all minorities" state that it is no such law would ever get in here for fear of someone shouting racist against the government.

Nodin

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

If you go to a Muslim country there are all sort of laws banning all sorts of "non Muslim" things (booze, crosses, public displays of affection, women having rights etc) and they are not toleration of any "western" customs in their face.

I don't see why Europe shouldn't take the exact opposite view.

The exact opposite view is to be tolerant, not to stoop to sectarian intolerance.

Eliot Rosewater

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

If you go to a Muslim country there are all sort of laws banning all sorts of "non Muslim" things (booze, crosses, public displays of affection, women having rights etc) and they are not toleration of any "western" customs in their face.

I don't see why Europe shouldn't take the exact opposite view.

So you first criticise these extreme Muslim countries' lack of tolerance ... and then suggest we model our moral code on theirs?

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Islam is a disgusting religion (they all are) and I fully support any law banning any aspect of it or other religions nonsense.

That's ridiculous. No one should be forbidden from practising their religion just because you don't agree with it. This is authoritarianism reminiscent of fascism.

Cookie_Monster

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So you first criticise these extreme Muslim countries' lack of tolerance ... and then suggest we model our moral code on theirs?

where did I criticise it? I just mentioned examples...

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That's ridiculous. No one should be forbidden from practising their religion just because you don't agree with it. This is authoritarianism reminiscent of fascism.

Practice it all you want, in your own home.
I don't agree with any religion, the whole concept is insane.

donaghs

Mahatma coat wrote: »

No Forcin Wimmin to wear Burkhas, We have Nuns in Habbits for that.

No Sharia Law, Anyone old enought to remember 'Holy Catholic Ireland??'

Silly, there are good reasons why we got rid of 'holy Catholic Ireland", similar reasons why other religious mania has to have limits set on it.

I think the main focus of most burkha laws is to prevent the face being covered. Same reason you cant walk around the streets wearing a balaclava.

I think most secular democracries, or democracies who allow freedom of conscience are waking up to the fact the you can't simply a have a "whatever you're into, man" approach to everything. If you tolerate intolerance (whether racists, religious fanatics, extreme secularism) you'll end up with a society at war with itself. Basic principles that everyone has to adhere to have to be set down.

caseyann

irishconvert wrote: »

What if they choose to wear it themself?
What about an Irish convert to Islam who decides she wants to wear it?

What if they did,why would they when nothing to do with Muslim religion? And no need for it,if they want to live in that culture then they should move were it is apart of the culture.I wouldn't move there because i dont want to change how i dress.Have you ever met an Irish woman who wears full covering? Why are you even arguing it when its not apart of religion?

Denerick

I despise this pathetic argument 'Islamic countries are intolerant fascist hellholes so we shouldn't feel guilty.' Comparing ourselves to countries like Iran, were you will be stoned to death if homosexual, or Saudi Arabia, where women cannot even drive, is so absurd it doesn't deserve rebuttal.

donaghs

Denerick wrote: »

I despise this pathetic argument 'Islamic countries are intolerant fascist hellholes so we shouldn't feel guilty.' Comparing ourselves to countries like Iran, were you will be stoned to death if homosexual, or Saudi Arabia, where women cannot even drive, is so absurd it doesn't deserve rebuttal.

I agree, I don't like arguements that say "don't critcise one wrong, because some other wrong happened somewhere else".

But in a truly tolerant society, shouldn't we permit people from those countries to practice their beliefs and their way of life (including stoning)? That the crux of the debate really.

Denerick

donaghs wrote: »

But in a truly tolerant society, shouldn't we permit people from those countries to practice their beliefs and their way of life (including stoning)? That the crux of the debate really.

Wearing a veil does nothing to harm me personally whilst stoning people for homosexuality is a human rights violation that may or may not affect you or somebody close to you. The two do not equate.

The crux of the argument is that one group (An uneasy coalition of the far right, traditional conservatives and feminists) want to enforce a certain style of dress which is aimed at a religious minority (There is a queasy element of social engineering at work here) while there are others who don't.

thirtythirty

Emm...does no one else see this not as a religious attack? But as basic common sense according to western society?

So the Burqas happen to be Muslim. What other clothes are there that fully cover a persons identification. Hell, what about "the hoodie" legislation debacle in Britain?? What about the "you must remove your [motorbike] helmet before entering" signs on banks, shops, and service stations?

I think banning of burqas has nothing to do with surpressing a religion, and everything to do with common sense.

Unfortunately, because burqas are associated with muslim/islam/whatever, then it's very easy to tie it to Switzerland's moves. Switzerland is known for being quite a nasty people though, I disagree with the minerat banning.

K-9

Mahatma coat wrote: »

The 'Far Right' is not some Curiosity that Other partys Pander to to get a few Extra Votes, as can bee seen form the number of Elected Representatives of Right Leaning Parties across Europe in recent Years, People Vote for the Candidate that most espouses their Values and beliefs. Even with the Posturing of Main Stream Parties in Britain at the Last Election the BNP got Griffin Elected as an MEP.

That would suggest a Growing Mandate to me.

Yet they got about 2% in the General Election. His election was more a protest vote than anything else, but it did raise the issue of immigration, which is a good thing.

Denerick

spottyelephant wrote: »

Emm...does no one else see this not as a religious attack? But as basic common sense according to western society?

So the Burqas happen to be Muslim. What other clothes are there that fully cover a persons identification. Hell, what about "the hoodie" legislation debacle in Britain?? What about the "you must remove your [motorbike] helmet before entering" signs on banks, shops, and service stations?

I think banning of burqas has nothing to do with surpressing a religion, and everything to do with common sense.

Unfortunately, because burqas are associated with muslim/islam/whatever, then it's very easy to tie it to Switzerland's moves. Switzerland is known for being quite a nasty people though, I disagree with the minerat banning.

'Common sense'? Is it really common sense for policemen to have to waste time to arrest women who insist on wearing a particular item of clothing? Is it common sense to criminalise women because they wish to wear an item of clothing they consider to befit their religion and chosen path?

Banning the burka is a reaction to little dads army bigots with nothing else to do but complain about the bloody Muslims. It is transparantly bigoted.

Nodin

donaghs wrote: »

I agree, I don't like arguements that say "don't critcise one wrong, because some other wrong happened somewhere else".

But in a truly tolerant society, shouldn't we permit people from those countries to practice their beliefs and their way of life (including stoning)? That the crux of the debate really.

Stoning falls foul as it infringes (to put it mildly) on others.

spottyelephant wrote:

What about the "you must remove your [motorbike] helmet before entering" signs on banks, shops, and service stations?.

Theres a case for that kind of legislation. Unfortunately the French effort seeks to ban the clothing everywhere.

jackiebaron

coletti wrote: »

Your analogy is emotive but, alas, inaccurate. Many Mulsim women come under a lot of pressure for their menfolk to wear the burka. They even come under pressure from their womenfolk to wear it.

We live in a society which believes in freedom, and in a society where we dislike that Muslim women are often denied the same freedoms as everyone else by their male dominated structures.

What we have to realise is that many muslim structures result in intolerance and denials of freedoms we take for granted. We already know how intolerant muslim societies are in other countries where they insist all women cover their hair, legs and shoulders.

While it might appear to be intolerant to some to be prevented wearing the burka in certain situations, for others who might otherwise be forced to wear it as a result of pressure form their society it will be a relief.

Jack Straw, the former UK Home Secretary, made a valuable point that he found it very difficuly, if not impossible, to communicate with muslim women he met when he wasn't able to see any part of their face.

As with most issues, there are two sides to this one, and our instinct is not to ban anything. However we live in a society where we must stand up for the freedoms of these women against the oppression of their society which pressures them to wear the burka.

Our society fought for womens rights many years ago, and I am uneasy to see women again being forced, or even believing it is their own decision, to want to wear the burka. No Muslim man wants to wear it, and our society believes in equality and rights for all.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Women's rights are completely different to cultural or spousal pressures. The fight for women's rights involved changing the LAW so they could vote, so they were entitled BY LAW to everything that a man was entitled to. The issue of what to wear is not part of the law nor should it ever be. If a man forces his wife to wear an abaya, there's not an awful lot we can do about it. If she refuses and he beats her and she reports him, then fine..we lock him up for assault and battery. Banning the wearing of the veil or hijab is a dead letter. It has nothing to do with women's rights. You don't see anyone campaignning for a law which bans Muslim husbands from preventing their wives from leaving the house unaccompanied.
I own a holiday home in a Muslim country. I go to the beach and I see young teenage Arab girls in bikinis chilling out with their girlfriends who are wearing full length coverings. It's a matter of choice for most of them. Why do I know this? Because they told me. A small percentage have strict fathers. Some are modest and shy so they cover themselves. Some are devout, stating that they want to save their beauty for the man they marry, while others don't give a toss and wear what they want.

Ever see a girlschool letting out at 4pm? You've got some girls buttoned up to the neck, skirt below the knee, socks pulled up, sensible shoes, nerdy hairstyle, etc. Then you've got the mainstream...casual with a hint of the fashion of the day in their shoes and hair. Then you got the downright brassy ones....ankle socks, mini-skirt, blouse unbuttoned, sleazy eye makeup, etc.
They all choose how they look. Again some are prudish or modest but some of them will be pressured by a strict parent.

There are many men who refuse to let their wives or girlfriends dress a certain way and many won't let them wear lipstick or mascara. These clowns are insecure but they are oppressing their womenfolk the exact same way as the Muslim men you claim are oppressing their wives with the whole burqa business.
Making eyeshadow and lipstick compulsory in order to "liberate" the aforementioned women is just as moronic as banning the veil to "liberate" Muslim women. It beggars belief. It really does.

What about the majority of women who feel overexposed and self conscious and even vulgar if they don't wear a hijab or abaya? Isn't banning these garments oppressing these women? Now they have NO choice.
This "liberation" excuse is a crock of sh1t and I among many others recognise it for what it is, namely the typical "make you feel guilty for opposing the ban" stunt, just like protecting the health of barstaff was the "make you feel guilty" stunt for opposing the smoking ban or "being soft on terrorists and street thugs" was the make-you-feel-guilty stunt if you opposed the placing of cameras on every friggin' square inch of the country.

The banning of the veil is a sick and disgusting effort at discriminating against Muslims. They (the proponents of this twisted ban) can't come out and say that though. Nor can they couch this argument in any other lame rationale like "overt displays of religiosity" because then they'd be compelled to ban turbans, Jewish skullcaps, hari krishnas' robes, goth kids' pentagram jewellery, crucifixes, the lot.

This ban is fascist, plain and simple and it shouldn't be tolerated.

caseyann

jackiebaron wrote: »

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Women's rights are completely different to cultural or spousal pressures. The fight for women's rights involved changing the LAW so they could vote, so they were entitled BY LAW to everything that a man was entitled to. The issue of what to wear is not part of the law nor should it ever be. If a man forces his wife to wear an abaya, there's not an awful lot we can do about it. If she refuses and he beats her and she reports him, then fine..we lock him up for assault and battery. Banning the wearing of the veil or hijab is a dead letter. It has nothing to do with women's rights. You don't see anyone campaignning for a law which bans Muslim husbands from preventing their wives from leaving the house unaccompanied.
I own a holiday home in a Muslim country. I go to the beach and I see young teenage Arab girls in bikinis chilling out with their girlfriends who are wearing full length coverings. It's a matter of choice for most of them. Why do I know this? Because they told me. A small percentage have strict fathers. Some are modest and shy so they cover themselves. Some are devout, stating that they want to save their beauty for the man they marry, while others don't give a toss and wear what they want.

Ever see a girlschool letting out at 4pm? You've got some girls buttoned up to the neck, skirt below the knee, socks pulled up, sensible shoes, nerdy hairstyle, etc. Then you've got the mainstream...casual with a hint of the fashion of the day in their shoes and hair. Then you got the downright brassy ones....ankle socks, mini-skirt, blouse unbuttoned, sleazy eye makeup, etc.
They all choose how they look. Again some are prudish or modest but some of them will be pressured by a strict parent.

There are many men who refuse to let their wives or girlfriends dress a certain way and many won't let them wear lipstick or mascara. These clowns are insecure but they are oppressing their womenfolk the exact same way as the Muslim men you claim are oppressing their wives with the whole burqa business.
Making eyeshadow and lipstick compulsory in order to "liberate" the aforementioned women is just as moronic as banning the veil to "liberate" Muslim women. It beggars belief. It really does.

What about the majority of women who feel overexposed and self conscious and even vulgar if they don't wear a hijab or abaya? Isn't banning these garments oppressing these women? Now they have NO choice.
This "liberation" excuse is a crock of sh1t and I among many others recognise it for what it is, namely the typical "make you feel guilty for opposing the ban" stunt, just like protecting the health of barstaff was the "make you feel guilty" stunt for opposing the smoking ban or "being soft on terrorists and street thugs" was the make-you-feel-guilty stunt if you opposed the placing of cameras on every friggin' square inch of the country.

The banning of the veil is a sick and disgusting effort at discriminating against Muslims. They (the proponents of this twisted ban) can't come out and say that though. Nor can they couch this argument in any other lame rationale like "overt displays of religiosity" because then they'd be compelled to ban turbans, Jewish skullcaps, hari krishnas' robes, goth kids' pentagram jewellery, crucifixes, the lot.

This ban is fascist, plain and simple and it shouldn't be tolerated.

Its not apart of the religion so no discrimination,its apart of a backward controlled oppressive attitude towards women and stone age mentality.That women themselves are fighting in those countries and been shunned for.If you are told everyday of your life you must wear it as its wrong for any man to look upon you and you must be shy and submissive to the man in your house and husband.I would say thats oppressive.People like to wear their blinders.

Denerick

caseyann wrote: »

Its not apart of the religion so no discrimination,its apart of a backward controlled oppressive attitude towards women and stone age mentality.That women themselves are fighting in those countries and been shunned for.If you are told everyday of your life you must wear it as its wrong for any man to look upon you and you must be shy and submissive to the man in your house and husband.I would say thats oppressive.People like to wear their blinders.

Banning the veil is equally backward and controlling.

Do you have any idea of how chauvinistic it is for you to tell women what they cannot wear? Its also bigoted as you assume the only reason women wear it is because of coercion, though the fact is that this is often not the case.

Freiheit

There doesn't appear to be a great deal of tolerance within Islam towards other ways of life.

If Islamophobia is on the rise there is a reason for it.

caseyann

Denerick wrote: »

Banning the veil is equally backward and controlling.

Do you have any idea of how chauvinistic it is for you to tell women what they cannot wear? Its also bigoted as you assume the only reason women wear it is because of coercion, though the fact is that this is often not the case.

You can not prove that,its by freedom of choice they wear it.They dont know any other way as they have been told to.Therefore its coerced and forced to think like that.Like it was for Irish women etc..... back in day had to cover up their bodies and be ashamed to show them or they were sluts if they were showing certain parts of body.The swim clothes women used to have to wear,but men could trasp around showing off everything.
You want to live in stone age mentality dont bring it here.Its been shown those women in them countries are threatened with death and been disowned if they even think to want to remove it.
Again you have no proof and those women are not coerced and threatened to wear them.Where its been shown fact that they are forced to wear them.
Hard for me to be a chauvinist when i am a woman and hard for me to be a bigot when its stone age mentality for men to keep their women under control.
For you to say it should be allowed is chauvinistic.

Denerick

caseyann wrote: »

You can not prove that,its by freedom of choice they wear it.They dont know any other way as they have been told to.Therefore its coerced and forced to think like that.Like it was for Irish women etc..... back in day had to cover up their bodies and be ashamed to show them or they were sluts if they were showing certain parts of body.The swim clothes women used to have to wear,but men could trasp around showing off everything.
You want to live in stone age mentality dont bring it here.Its been shown those women in them countries are threatened with death and been disowned if they even think to want to remove it.
Again you have no proof and those women are not coerced and threatened to wear them.Where its been shown fact that they are forced to wear them.
Hard for me to be a chauvinist when i am a woman and hard for me to be a bigot when its stone age mentality for men to keep their women under control.
For you to say it should be allowed is chauvinistic.

You really don't see the inherent contradictions and bigotry there then?

It should be the choice of the woman if she wants to wear the veil or not - many women make a conscious choice to wear it and you have no business telling them they can't. This makes you a chauvinist. You have no right assuming they are coerced into doing this - in fact it displays your wilfull lack of knowledge of Islam and a nasty assumption, hence this makes you a bigot.

Yap on about stone age mentalities all you want - it is their right.

Whether you are a woman or not is besides the issue. In fact feminists have muddied these waters with their unconscionable assault on women's right to wear clothing that they feel is appropriate for them. Its no wonder that intellectually, feminism has become more and more irrelevant over the last two decades. It simply has no vitality.

Denerick

Freiheit wrote: »

There doesn't appear to be a great deal of tolerance within Islam towards other ways of life.

If Islamophobia is on the rise there is a reason for it.

Jews, Christians, Druze and myriad other religious groups have existed in relative harmony in Islamic countries since the 7th century. Compare this to 20th century Europe, before the multiculturall migrations, when Europe was homogenously white and Christian with the exception of a few Jews. And we know what happened them.

Freiheit

It's a pity many (not all) modern day Muslims haven't learned from them. Homophobic/transphobic/misogynistic and deeply anachronistic creed.

Denerick

Freiheit wrote: »

It's a pity many (not all) modern day Muslims haven't learned from them. Homophobic/transphobic/misogynistic and deeply anachronistic creed.

That bears no relation to the issue we are debating. Take your bigotry elsewhere please.

caseyann

Denerick wrote: »

You really don't see the inherent contradictions and bigotry there then?

It should be the choice of the woman if she wants to wear the veil or not - many women make a conscious choice to wear it and you have no business telling them they can't. This makes you a chauvinist. You have no right assuming they are coerced into doing this - in fact it displays your wilfull lack of knowledge of Islam and a nasty assumption, hence this makes you a bigot.

Yap on about stone age mentalities all you want - it is their right.

Whether you are a woman or not is besides the issue. In fact feminists have muddied these waters with their unconscionable assault on women's right to wear clothing that they feel is appropriate for them. Its no wonder that intellectually, feminism has become more and more irrelevant over the last two decades. It simply has no vitality.

i have no nasty assumption about Islam,what you perceive as Islam is a stone age mentality of controlling women.Dark ages so that the man can be the master and woman must obey.She must not be looked upon by other men as she is then a whore if she allows this to happen.
Nothing of what you are standing up for is in koran.
No its shows your wilful lack of knowledge about manipulation of women under the pretence of it been apart of their religion.What woman is going to know the difference when told this is what you must accept and believe in.And you do nothing more than stand up for manipulative controlling stone age culture.And i again say,if they wish to live in it then let them live as such in their countries where is it apart of their culture or way.
They are nothing more than mans wish upon a woman not a wish of Allah.

Freiheit

Denerick you've just illustrated what's wrong in many quarters, by labelling me and anyone else who legitimately criticises Islam as a bigot. I am not a bigot, most Muslims are good people, but Islam is a misgogynistic,homo/transphobic and anachronistic religion by any objective standards. By labelling me a bigot I think you are the true 'bigot'.

For the record I think my words are very relevant, take your head out of the sand and look around you.

Denerick

caseyann wrote: »

i have no nasty assumption about Islam,what you perceive as Islam is a stone age mentality of controlling women.Dark ages so that the man can be the master and woman must obey.She must not be looked upon by other men as she is then a whore if she allows this to happen.
Nothing of what you are standing up for is in koran.
No its shows your wilful lack of knowledge about manipulation of women under the pretence of it been apart of their religion.What woman is going to know the difference when told this is what you must accept and believe in.And you do nothing more than stand up for manipulative controlling stone age culture.And i again say,if they wish to live in it then let them live as such in their countries where is it apart of their culture or way.
They are nothing more than mans wish upon a woman not a wish of Allah.

Such nasty assumptions. You can speak for 500 million + Islamic women, can you? Disgusting.

Denerick

Freiheit wrote: »

Denerick you've just illustrated what's wrong in many quarters, by labelling me and anyone else who legitimately criticises Islam as a bigot. I am not a bigot, most Muslims are good people, but Islam is a misgogynistic,homo/transphobic and anachronistic religion by any objective standards. By labelling me a bigot I think you are the true 'bigot'.

For the record I think my words are very relevant, take your head out of the sand and look around you.

You are using this thread as a launchpad to make a generalised negative comment about Islam. This is not the issue. Again your bigotry is irrelevant to this question.

Freiheit

A negative analysis of the Islamic creed, which is reason for angst about Islam, the topic of this thread is not bigotry. But have it your way if your not capable of understanding that.

Denerick

Freiheit wrote: »

A negative analysis of the Islamic creed, which is reason for angst about Islam, the topic of this thread is not bigotry. But have it your way if your not capable of understanding that.

Are you admitting then that the veil ban is motivated by fear of Islam? (I prefer the term bigotry or even fascism) At least you're honest about it.

jackiebaron

Denerick wrote: »

I am aware it is not required by Islam. Some women make the choice to cover their faces in public in a show of modesty and piety. It is not my business (A white agnostic) to tell them (A brown muslim) That that veil 'is not required' under Islam.

Did it ever occur to you that some women who wear veils, hijabs, abayas, burqas might also be agnostic (a hurler on the fence) or even atheistic?

Freiheit

The burkha ban in some countries, not 'veil' ban is motivated by fear yes, cathal McCarthy in the Irish Independent says exactly that and that's he's afraid of Islam. That does not amount to bigotry,to be afraid is not bigotry.

Denerick

jackiebaron wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that some women who wear veils, hijabs, abayas, burqas might also be agnostic (a hurler on the fence) or even atheistic?

Yes.

In many Arab countries women wear the hijab unselfconsciously, mainly because its the fashion. Its practical too - you look neat and your hair is kept clean. Its almost like a man wearing a shirt and tie into work - he'd rather be wearing something else but that takes out all the hassle. Its a cultural thing more than anything else and suggestions that women are imprisoned is so ignorant it beggars belief. I suggest that Caseyann should read more about Arab culture and perhaps read between the lines, and not focus on the facile superficialities.

Freiheit

How many Islamic women have you spoken to Denerick? In Arab and Irish society?.....How many Islamic men have you spoken to in relation to their views on women and other matters?

jackiebaron

spottyelephant wrote: »

Emm...does no one else see this not as a religious attack? But as basic common sense according to western society?

So the Burqas happen to be Muslim. What other clothes are there that fully cover a persons identification. Hell, what about "the hoodie" legislation debacle in Britain?? What about the "you must remove your [motorbike] helmet before entering" signs on banks, shops, and service stations?

I think banning of burqas has nothing to do with surpressing a religion, and everything to do with common sense.

Unfortunately, because burqas are associated with muslim/islam/whatever, then it's very easy to tie it to Switzerland's moves. Switzerland is known for being quite a nasty people though, I disagree with the minerat banning.

Since when has it been mandatory to reveal your identity under any circumstances? Your utterly pathetic analogy about hoodies and motorcycle helmets is supposed to tie in with a ban on veils?? What kind of cretinous statement is that? The "remove your motorcycle helmet" request is applicable to those entering a bank because they may be attempting a heist and to conceal themselves from the cameras.
Are you going to issue a mandate that a guy lying in the park miles from the nearest bank remove his motorcycle helmet (if he wishes to wear one) the same way as you DEMAND that a woman in a veil (also miles from any bank) who is walking down the road or in the park with her kids or just buying things at the market de-shroud herself. Get your brain right.

Daftendirekt

caseyann wrote: »

You can not prove that,its by freedom of choice they wear it.They dont know any other way as they have been told to.Therefore its coerced and forced to think like that.Like it was for Irish women etc..... back in day had to cover up their bodies and be ashamed to show them or they were sluts if they were showing certain parts of body.The swim clothes women used to have to wear,but men could trasp around showing off everything.
You want to live in stone age mentality dont bring it here.Its been shown those women in them countries are threatened with death and been disowned if they even think to want to remove it.
Again you have no proof and those women are not coerced and threatened to wear them.Where its been shown fact that they are forced to wear them.
Hard for me to be a chauvinist when i am a woman and hard for me to be a bigot when its stone age mentality for men to keep their women under control.
For you to say it should be allowed is chauvinistic.

It's not up to him to prove that some women choose to wear the burka. It isn't (or shouldn't be) the default assumption that an adult women with a healthy mind and body is mentally unfit to decide how dress herself. So the burden of proof is on you in this case, to indicate that they do it because "they don't know any other way."

But even if you can back your point up, have you really thought it through? If it's acceptable to decide that burka-wearing women can't be trusted to decide on something as relatively insignificant as the item of clothing they wear in public, how can they be trusted to choose their own career? Or vote? Or do any of the other things all responsible adults are usually entitled to do? And before I'm accused of committing a slippery slope fallacy, I'm not saying one thing will necessarily lead to the other, just that the same line of reasoning can be applied to certain other instances where some might seek to strip women of other civil liberties.

There's a terible irony in your protesting about women's clothing choices being dictated by social pressure when you yourself are actually arguing in favour of the idea of legally banning all women from wearing a certain item of clothing.

And no, it isn't hard for a woman to be a chauvinist. And if you must bandy about terms like "stone age mentality", it would be far more appropriate to direct it at the idea that certain women aren't responsible for their own decisions, both good and bad.

jackiebaron

caseyann wrote: »

Its not apart of the religion so no discrimination,its apart of a backward controlled oppressive attitude towards women and stone age mentality.That women themselves are fighting in those countries and been shunned for.If you are told everyday of your life you must wear it as its wrong for any man to look upon you and you must be shy and submissive to the man in your house and husband.I would say thats oppressive.People like to wear their blinders.

Being shy and submissive is NOT the point here. Some cultures....Irish included, have males who blindly refuse to allow their daughters/sisters/wives to dress a certain way or wear a certain garment/trinket/decorative piece. Why are you not calling them backward and screeching for legislation to thwart their efforts?

I would ask you one very VERY simple question. If YOU WANTED to wear a veil or a hijab and you weren't allowed, how would you feel about that? Would you feel as pissed off as if you were living in Riyadh and you weren't allowed to wear a tank-top, cut-off jeans and flip-flops ?

What if you were living in Kish or Tehran or Tabriz and you were arrested for wearing tight jeans and a pair of glittery strappy sandals? Would you be fine with that? You'll probably say something like "respect the law of the land" but you just stated that these places were backward and now you want to become AS backward?

Where were you 15 years ago? Were you clamouring for banning Middle Eastern dress then? Why now?