Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Islamophobia on the rise?

  • 22-07-2010 10:58PM
    #1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭


    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.


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 330 ✭✭diddley


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 295 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,938 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 295 ✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,938 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 295 ✭✭simonj


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 79 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,639 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    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?
    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,639 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    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...

    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭donaghs


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,938 ✭✭✭caseyann


    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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,923 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,178 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    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.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭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.
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,938 ✭✭✭caseyann


    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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement