remove that niqab or leave!

Sclosages

I personally find them fascinating! I wonder two things.

1. What do they look like?
2. How the hell do they stand the heat!!!???? (Also wonder this about the ones with the head-dresses)

Timberrrrrrrr

jackofalltrades wrote: »

That sentence makes no sense.:)

Yeah auto correct is a killer

FIT was meant to be there.

jackofalltrades

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Courtesy of Conorh91:

Even though you have put the technical justification, I think it's the spirit of the law that matters here. Anyone with a bit of old fashioned cop on can see that there is a fundamental difference between wearing a mask at a masquerade ball and wearing a postbox style costume due to an overly conservative (relative to the 20th and 21st century secular Western European custom) religious interpretation.

Timberrrrrrrr

reprise wrote: »

The original play in question was La Traviata which features Violetta - a prostitute.

Using your logic, do you think the actress playing Violetta should have been hauled off the stage and charged with prostitution?

The law states no veils in public, the performers will wear veils in public. Are they exempt from the law now?

jimboblep

end of the road wrote: »

sometimes public support is a reason not to do something. sometimes the public support things that are a waste of time and that are bigoted and racist which means they mustn't be allowed to happen

Wow I think you should read that again and have a good think about what your trying to say because that is a pretty mad statement.

chatperche

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Many Christians work on a Sunday so i don't see your point.

Many Muslims (actually only 2,000 out of a population of 5 Million according to your mate Nodin's stats) do not wear the hijab so I don't see your point either!

jimboblep

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The law states no veils in public, the performers will wear veils in public. Are they exempt from the law now?

Yes there is exemptions in the law for performers, motorcyclists, travelling in a private car, and in a place of worship, ie a mosque with possibly some others, that I cant remember

UCDVet

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Do you think the police in France tomorrow would approach a bride and ask her to remove her veil on her wedding day? How about the performers i mentioned above? Would a hotel holding a masquerade ball be raided and everyone told to remove their masks?

The law actually allows for a lot of those things.

The intent of the law is prevent criminal/anti-social behaviour by making people in public show their faces. In a lot of places, criminals intentionally cover their face so that they can't be identified. Ski-masks or panty-hose over the face before you try to rob someone makes it near impossible to identify you.

The law allows for performers on stage to cover their face. And for brides to cover their face. And for religious people participating in a religious event to cover their face.

It doesn't allow for people in public to cover their face.

Maybe it's a stupid law, maybe it isn't. But I don't see why everyone is turning this into a religious thing. I can start a religion that says the human spirit should be uncovered, and as such, clothing should not be worn....that doesn't mean I should be exempt from laws that require me to cover myself.

chatperche

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Show me where it states a christian doesn't have to work on the sabbath.

Show us wear it states a woman has to wear the hijab.

reprise

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The law states no veils in public, the performers will wear veils in public. Are they exempt from the law now?

You first.

The original play in question was La Traviata which features Violetta - a prostitute.

Using your logic, do you think the actress playing Violetta should have been hauled off the stage and charged with prostitution?

chatperche

end of the road wrote: »

sometimes public support is a reason not to do something. sometimes the public support things that are a waste of time and that are bigoted and racist which means they mustn't be allowed to happen

Wow! You've obviously still haven't check the word democracy in the dictionary. If you do own one, you should also check Tyrant, which I'm sure you'll agree is much more down your lane. While you're at it look up the meaning of vale. I have a feeling it doesn't mean what you think it does.

That being said goodnight. There is nothing on telly tonight but I am fairly sure there are more productive things to be done than reading the ramblings of a keyboard anarchist!

conorh91

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Show me where it states a christian doesn't have to work on the sabbath.

Derp. Unfortunately chatperche has beaten me to it. It does not say in the Qu'ran that a woman must conceal her face at the Opera.

It is deeply fallacious to attempt to inquire into the validity of religious beliefs, since religious belief requires nothing more than an assertion in order for it to be a belief.

I can say I don't believe a Christian has to work on the Sabbath, and, hey presto, a belief has been formed.

So what's your answer, please?

Should it be illegal for a Muslim to request his deeply Catholic staff to work on the Sabbath, if it is fundamentally against their beliefs?

If a law was bought in tomorrow stating monks cannot wear robes in public would you be ok with that?

No, because such a law would not be justified in terms of achieving a legitimate social aim. Neither would I agree with a law which forbade Muslims to wear religious garb like taqiyahs and the headscarf-hijab. I would vehemently object to that kind of law.

I would appreciate if you actually answer my question this time, but I won't hold my breath.

C14N

conorh91 wrote: »

I am trying to figure out why people are seeking to elevate religious rights in some circumstances, whereas they would presumably dismiss the above religiously-claimed rights.

Well presumably most people would say religious practices shouldn't be infringed upon unless they're in some way harmful or disruptive to others around them. Now I can see that having a veil on can lead to crime, especially if anyone can just disquise themselves as a Saudi Muslim but was this the case? Were veiled crimes a big thing in France before the law?

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Courtesy of Conorh91:

So does that mean they can still wear one on special occasions?

conorh91

C14N wrote: »

Now I can see that having a veil on can lead to crime, especially if anyone can just disquise themselves as a Saudi Muslim but was this the case?

That might be the argument some people are making, but it is not the argument I am making, and it was also rejected by European Court of Human Rights.

Instead, the European Court of Human Rights said the ban was a proportionate response to the legitimate aim of "living together", an element of protecting and preserving the rights of others. The barrier raised against others by a concealing veil could be seen as breaching the right of others to live in a space of socialisation which made living together easier.

Timberrrrrrrr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A veil on a wedding day is something that only lasts a couple of hours of a person's life, same as wearing a mask at Haloween or a helmet while playing sport.

Not the same as wearing an item of clothing day in day out.

So by your logic it's ok to break the law as long as it's only for a few hours? How long was the opera going to last?

Timberrrrrrrr

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Courtesy of Conorh91:

Don't know why they bothered with all of that when they could have easy just said "No Muslims allowed"

jimboblep

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So by your logic it's ok to break the law as long as it's only for a few hours? How long was the opera going to last?

Its not breaking the law, as was pointed out earlier.

Timberrrrrrrr

jimboblep wrote: »

Its not breaking the law, as was pointed out earlier.

Yeah i seen that after

The law basically says it's ok to wear a veil while doing Christian things but not Muslim things. But it's not about oppressing them right

reprise

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

snip

The original play in question was La Traviata which features Violetta - a prostitute.

Using your logic, do you think the actress playing Violetta should have been hauled off the stage and charged with prostitution?

conorh91

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Don't know why they bothered with all of that when they could have easy just said "No Muslims allowed"

As defenders of the niqab have repeatedly stated, the niqab is only worn by an extreme minority.

How, therefore, can the ban equate to a statement against all Muslims? The vast, vast majority of Muslims would appear to reject the need to wear the niqab.

So your statement is pure BS.

Are you going to answer my question, now?

Lets try again

Should it be illegal for a Muslim to request his deeply Catholic staff to work on the Sabbath, if it is fundamentally against their beliefs?

jimboblep

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yeah i seen that after

The law basically says it's ok to wear a veil while doing Christian things but not Muslim things. But it's not about oppressing them right

No your wrong again, muslim women can wear a veil while in a private car,and in a mosque.

end of the road

conorh91 wrote: »

Let me ask a question of the posters who support the right to conceal the face on religious grounds.

Would you further affirm other rights on religious grounds, where those rights impinge on the interests of wider society?

For example, should a Catholic be let go about in public wearing a t-shirt that is grossly anti-Semitic?

Should it be illegal for a Muslim employer to require a Christian worker to go into work on the Christian Sabbath, or is that unfair targeting of Christians?

Should a Catholic married couple, running a guesthouse, be allowed refuse access to homosexual couples, citing the owners' Catholic beliefs?

Just how far do you intend to go regarding the primacy of religious rights over the rights of the rest of society?

I suspect quite a bit of hypocrisy here but please, prove me wrong.

a muslim wearing a vale does not impinge on the interests of wider society.

reprise

end of the road wrote: »

a muslim wearing a vale does not impinge on the interests of wider society.

If you are going to debate the issue badly and irrationally, at least spell the word correctly.

end of the road

reprise wrote: »

If you are going to debate the issue badly and irrationally, at least spell the word correctly.

thats all you've got. so you agree with me then. thought so.

jackofalltrades

C14N wrote: »

So does that mean they can still wear one on special occasions?

My non-legal understanding of it is that it does.

conorh91 wrote: »

Instead, the European Court of Human Rights said the ban was a proportionate response to the legitimate aim of "living together", an element of protecting and preserving the rights of others. The barrier raised against others by a concealing veil could be seen as breaching the right of others to live in a space of socialisation which made living together easier.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The law basically says it's ok to wear a veil while doing Christian things but not Muslim things.

Where?

reprise

end of the road wrote: »

thats all you've got. so you agree with me then. thought so.

What on earth made you think I didn't?

BuilderPlumber

Yarf Yarf wrote: »

"We are going to liberate women by telling them that they can't wear what they want!"

Telling a woman she can't wear a niqab is as bad as telling her she has to. Many Muslim women choose to wear the dress associated with the religion. I go to college with many Muslim girls who wear niqabs, hijabs, etc. and they're not oppressed - they're in third level education, they drive, they socialize with the rest of us like any normal girls. This idea that Muslim dress is somehow oppressive against women is countered by the fact that many Muslim women in free countries choose to wear it themselves. There's even a whole fashion to it. And for what it's worth, there is traditional 'modest' dress that many Muslim men choose to wear too. It goes both ways.

Also, all this "well, if we were in Iran blah blah blah" stuff is silly. We're not in the middle east. We're supposed to pride ourselves on the fact that we don't police people's dress or personal lives. Why should we be basing our laws on what they do in the middle east?

People should be allowed dress as they please. And this should be supported by Fr (Ayatollah) Ali Khamenei Shah and other so-called leaders who are priests. The REAL test of leaders like him would be to be able to preside over such a brave statement being a neo-Christian/Islamic/Shia priest.

Would Khamenei tell his RICH wife how to dress or his RICH daugher in law? NO way. He would instead tell them to dress anyway they like and he would provide for them with money and fineries including the best fashion. Fr Khamenei should therefore expect the same for his country and tell every Iranian woman you have the freedom to dress any way you like because Mrs Fr Khamenei can.

Telling one to dress in a veil and telling one not to wear a veil are both forms of fascism. Both are imposing a dresscode based on someone's warped view. Telling people to wear a veil in Iran actually means most Iranian girls do not wear them and hate them. They know Fr Khamenei's and the other priests' wives (Iranian priests are allowed to get married always and allowed to be the Shah and in the government since 1979) wives are given that status and find it hypocritical they can't. Telling people not to wear a veil in other places means girls wear them and also the shocking looking cover-all-face things in defiance!

Women should be allowed to wear and veil if they want or not wear it if they want. They should also be aware that wearing a veil has nothing got to do with Islam or any other Christian-derived religion. Wearing a veil is probably more to do with shielding hair from the sands of the desert. People should realise too that yes Islam is from the same derivative as Christianity and very similar. Jesus is almost as important in it as he is in Christianity. Also, they should realise that Islam was not always associated with fascist neo-Nazis like it is today: in the past, it was not only very moderate but very enlightened and tolerant.

RandomName2

In general Western society frowns upon people having badges that identifies themselves as belonging to a particular group (putting themselves apart from the rest of society to a degree). Seeing someone with a hammer and sickle on their chest (and for it not to be ironic) can be legitimately offensive. Same thing with religious iconography. Now, when a particular religion demands that people appear in a certain manner (for instance how Seikhism demands that men's hair is worn) is a very different matter from when a group decides for their own reasons to display their faith on their sleeve (or head in this instance). Where there's the implication of coercion it is of course far worse.

The only time I can think that Catholics display their religion is a) during Ash Wednesday and b) by members of religious orders (priests and nuns). Even then, both practices are becoming a little archaic (and it's possible that that's for the better)

DarkyHughes

Wow, European fascism is making a big come back.

RandomName2

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Wow, European fascism is making a big come back.

DING DONG Godwin alert!