remove that niqab or leave!

wes · 21-10-2014 11:47am

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Aside from the all to frequent arguments and misunderstandings caused by people not being able to properly gauge the tone of the other person.

Yes, because that never ever happens face to face either. If it was so important to see someones face while communicating, then everyone would be making video calls on there phones, and not bothering with voice only for example. Its pretty clear that seeing someone's face is not essential for communication, and even when we have the option to see someones face, we don't necessarily choose to do so.

Delirium · 21-10-2014 11:48am

UCDCritic wrote: »

It is a well established fact that the niqab is not apart of Islam and is simply used as a tool of female oppression.

and banning women from wearing certain clothes isn't?

Tokyo · 21-10-2014 11:50am

UCDCritic wrote: »

It is a well established fact that the niqab is not apart of Islam and is simply used as a tool of female oppression.

... and yet Muslim women took to the streets of Paris to protest the ban when it was implemented. Are you saying that they are incapable of making that choice for themselves, or are otherwise misguided?

UCDCritic · 21-10-2014 11:54am

mike_ie wrote: »

... and yet Muslim women took to the streets of Paris to protest the ban when it was implemented. Are you saying that they are incapable of making that choice for themselves, or otherwise misguided?

You statement does not change the fact that the niqab is not apart of Islam and is a tool of female oppression

Perhaps do some research on the Psychological state of learned helplessness

BrokenHero · 21-10-2014 11:59am

To all the people that don't agree with the ban: do you also not agree with shops and banks banning the wearing of hoods and helmets? If not, then you are suggesting an exception should be made for these people and that is something which is impossible to implement as how the hell can anybody be sure that the person wearing the niqab is not doing so to evade being identified. Hoodies are banned in many shops in Ireland and the UK for similar reasons.

Indeed, a judge here has banned certain people from ever wearing hoods:

independent.ie/irish-news/judge-bans-five-men-from-wearing-hoodies-26496894.html

Seems to me that people would come to the support of Muslims no matter what they do. No doubt Ben Affleck has read the story and is currently somewhere getting fashionably offended on Muslim's behalf.

I have no problem with people being told that they can't cover their faces in certain public places. If I was told to take down my hood in a similar situation to this woman, I would of course do it. Being denied the right to cover your face in certain public places is not a big deal. I also find it rather absurd that some of the same people that object to these French laws, and claim that their rights to certain freedoms are being taken away by them, would still yet wish to see that that drawing of cartoons which poke fun at certain religious Prophets, be made a criminal offense.

FTA69 · 21-10-2014 12:05pm

UCDCritic wrote: »

It is a well established fact that the niqab is not apart of Islam and is simply used as a tool of female oppression.

I work with many women who wear the niqab and they all do so out of choice. Now, you could argue that Islamic society conditions women into modifying their dress and body to conform with an expected standard, but that happens in all societies albeit rarely with examples as extreme as the niqab. The notion that there is a coercive husband at home forcing his wife to wear the thing is largely a figment of people's imaginations. As I said, most women wear it out of choice and do so for a variety of reasons. It's a bit rich to bang on about women's rights while also declaring what they can and can't wear.

If Islamic women are to become more empowered, that will take place as a result of Muslim women themselves coming together and changing these attitudes from within. It won't occur as a result of legislation that criminalises women for wearing a certain type of headgear.

BrokenHero · 21-10-2014 12:14pm

FTA69 wrote: »

If Islamic women are to become more empowered, that will take place as a result of Muslim women themselves coming together and changing these attitudes from within. It won't occur as a result of legislation that criminalises women for wearing a certain type of headgear.

In Muslim countries that's fine. They can take all the time in world to start changing from "within" but some non-Muslim countries are not willing to wait around for that to happen and they have an issue with the niqab wearing now, today. If that changing that needs to happen "from within" can't be somewhat fast-tracked, then perhaps they would be better off moving to somewhere that it can. France has spoken.

RobYourBuilder · 21-10-2014 12:18pm

mike_ie wrote: »

... and yet Muslim women took to the streets of Paris to protest the ban when it was implemented. Are you saying that they are incapable of making that choice for themselves, or are otherwise misguided?

More protested in Karachi about the ban than in Paris.

Speaking of Paris;

Dalil Boubakeur, the grand mufti of the Paris Mosque, the largest and most influential in France, testified to parliament during the bill's preparation. He commented that the niqāb was not prescribed in Islam, that in the French and contemporary context its spread was associated with radicalisation and criminal behavior, and that its wearing was inconsistent with France's concept of the secular state

But I'm sure some farmer in Ireland knows better.

RobYourBuilder · 21-10-2014 12:20pm

FTA69 wrote: »

It's a bit rich to bang on about women's rights while also declaring what they can and can't wear.

The law has nothing to do with womens rights. It's based on security fears and to help aid social cohesion.

UCDCritic · 21-10-2014 12:25pm

FTA69 wrote: »

I work with many women who wear the niqab and they all do so out of choice. Now, you could argue that Islamic society conditions women into modifying their dress and body to conform with an expected standard, but that happens in all societies albeit rarely with examples as extreme as the niqab.

Is that supposed to make it acceptable? You have no point here

FTA69 wrote: »

The notion that there is a coercive husband at home forcing his wife to wear the thing is largely a figment of people's imaginations. As I said, most women wear it out of choice and do so for a variety of reasons. It's a bit rich to bang on about women's rights while also declaring what they can and can't wear.

You don't know that. For all we know Muslim women who wear the niqab are black and blue under their coverings.

Repression is not a form of expression, the two are contradictions. In Islamic culture women are not given the choice.

FTA69 wrote: »

If Islamic women are to become more empowered, that will take place as a result of Muslim women themselves coming together and changing these attitudes from within. It won't occur as a result of legislation that criminalises women for wearing a certain type of headgear.

WRONG if they choose to live in our home then the issue becomes our issue too. Don't think for a second you can compartmentalize this problem and we will just forget about it.

Don't forget they are living in our culture now

FTA69 · 21-10-2014 12:26pm

BrokenHero wrote: »

In Muslim countries that's fine. They can take all the time in world to start changing from "within" but some non-Muslim countries are not willing to wait around for that to happen and they have an issue with the niqab wearing now, today. If that changing that needs to happen "from within" can't be somewhat fast-tracked, then perhaps they would be better off moving to somewhere that it can. France has spoken.

So you're going to liberate women by criminalising them for choosing to wear a certain type of headgear? That's b*llocks to be honest. I agree 100% with religious iconography being banned from state institutions such as schools, hospitals etc and I generally admire the French system of secularism.

However, when you extend that into criminalising charging a woman for going to the shop while wearing a scarf of her own choosing, that's a different thing entirely.

UCDCritic · 21-10-2014 12:27pm

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

The law has nothing to do with womens rights. It's based on security fears and to help aid social cohesion.

It does have to do with their rights as well

Repression is not expression.

jackofalltrades · 21-10-2014 12:31pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

In the winter i wear a hoodie with a scarf covering the lower part of my face, why would this be acceptable attire but a woman in a niqab not be?

Why just winter?
Why not all the time, say at work, in college, in the local pub, at a funeral?

As I've pointed out with the example of the young lads wearing the hooded jackets.
Covering your face purely for the purposes of concealing it is not considered acceptable in our society.
Covering your face to protect it from the cold is.

FTA69 · 21-10-2014 12:36pm

UCDCritic wrote: »

Is that supposed to make it acceptable? You have no point here

The point is that women are frequently conditioned into behaving or looking a certain way in our own society as well. Many women feel like it is expected of them to shave their armpits or wear make-up or wear high heels; most women who engage in the above would also say they do these things out of choice. Similarly, while the niqab and the hijab is a result of social conditioning; most of the women who wear them would say they do so out of choice. I just asked a woman sitting across from me what she thought and she says she wears her headscarf out of choice.

You might feel it is unacceptable, but the basic point you seem to be missing is that people should have the option to wear what they want while minding their own business.

You don't know that. For all we know Muslim women who wear the niqab are black and blue under their coverings.

I'm sorry but I do know that because I work with niqab and hijab wearing Muslim women on a daily basis. Have you ever asked a Muslim woman about her dress out of curiosity? As I said above, the notion that every woman wearing such a thing does so because her husband will bate her senseless is a lazy caricature to be honest.

Repression is not a form of expression, the two are contradictions. In Islamic culture women are not given the choice.

They often are though. I know plenty of Muslim women who don't wear any sort of headscarf whatsoever. I agree that Islam in general relegates women to a lesser strata, however you aren't going to reverse that process by criminalising the women themselves.

Don't forget they are living in our culture now

The culture I aspire to doesn't include fining and criminalising women for wearing whatever they want on the street.

BrokenHero · 21-10-2014 12:40pm

FTA69 wrote: »

So you're going to liberate women by criminalising them for choosing to wear a certain type of headgear? That's b*llocks to be honest. I agree 100% with religious iconography being banned from state institutions such as schools, hospitals etc and I generally admire the French system of secularism.

However, when you extend that into criminalising charging a woman for going to the shop while wearing a scarf of her own choosing, that's a different thing entirely.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/8665873.stm

UCDCritic · 21-10-2014 12:41pm

I want to refer to a great video by Sam Harris who is an expert on the subject, this is the truth about Islam

wes · 21-10-2014 12:42pm

UCDCritic wrote: »

I want to refer to a great video by Sam Harris who is an expert on the subject, this is the truth about Islam

What are his qualifications for his expertise? My understanding is that his qualifications are in Neuroscience. Does he have other qualifications that I am unaware of that speak to his expertise on the subject?

Also, isn't he an unapologetic Iraq war supporter? A lot of those people have an axe to grind with Muslims, so hardly what i would consider a unbiased source or anything.

Tokyo · 21-10-2014 12:49pm

(of all the world religions,) Harris believes that Islam is the most evil.
Harris argues there is no such thing as Islamophobia, but criticizes "prejudice against Muslims or Arabs, purely because of the accident of their birth".

Clearly a man open to rational thought on the matter then...

Tokyo · 21-10-2014 12:51pm

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

...But I'm sure some farmer in Ireland knows better.

I won't even bother qualifying that with a response

wes · 21-10-2014 12:54pm

mike_ie wrote: »

Clearly a man open to rational thought on the matter then...

Interesting that he denies a very real bigotry, that clearly exists:

Outrage over Muslim woman killed in court

Its not even hard to disprove his nonsense claim. Amazing that someone who denies that such hatred exists is considered an expert on any matters in regards to Muslims. IMHO, denial of the type of bigotry that directly caused the murder a Muslim Woman in a German court, doesn't speak all that well of Mr Harris, and his expertise.

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-10-2014 12:56pm

BrokenHero wrote: »

To all the people that don't agree with the ban: do you also not agree with shops and banks banning the wearing of hoods and helmets? If not, then you are suggesting an exception should be made for these people and that is something which is impossible to implement as how the hell can anybody be sure that the person wearing the niqab is not doing so to evade being identified. Hoodies are banned in many shops in Ireland and the UK for similar reasons.

Indeed, a judge here has banned certain people from ever wearing hoods:

independent.ie/irish-news/judge-bans-five-men-from-wearing-hoodies-26496894.html

Seems to me that people would come to the support of Muslims no matter what they do. No doubt Ben Affleck has read the story and is currently somewhere getting fashionably offended on Muslim's behalf.

I have no problem with people being told that they can't cover their faces in certain public places. If I was told to take down my hood in a similar situation to this woman, I would of course do it. Being denied the right to cover your face in certain public places is not a big deal. I also find it rather absurd that some of the same people that object to these French laws, and claim that their rights to certain freedoms are being taken away by them, would still yet wish to see that that drawing of cartoons which poke fun at certain religious Prophets, be made a criminal offense.

She was sitting in the front row of the ****ing opera :rolleyes:

She went there, got to the box office, was handed her ticket, entered the building, probably mingled/looked around the lobby for anything from 2 minutes to 30 minutes and was then shown to her seat. She sat there for a minimum of 20 minutes through the first act and it wasn't until one of the singers on stage saw her and complained.

If it is so against the law how was she allowed into the building in the first place? How was she allowed to get to her seat passing (presumably) many other people and then allowed to sit there for 20 minutes surrounded by many others without it being an issue.

FTA69 · 21-10-2014 1:00pm

BrokenHero wrote: »

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/8665873.stm

Big deal. How many times did people rob banks wearing fancy dress masks? Should we arrest everyone at Halloween parties? How many crimes were committed by people wearing hoodies? Should we start fining moody teenagers outside shopping centres?

Tokyo · 21-10-2014 1:02pm

wes wrote: »

Interesting that he denies a very real bigotry, that clearly exists.

Indeed. The more of I read of Mr. Harris's world view right now, the more I realise that he would have fitted in quite well in 1930's Germany....

BrokenHero · 21-10-2014 1:05pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

She was sitting in the front row of the ****ing opera :rolleyes:

She went there, got to the box office, was handed her ticket, entered the building, probably mingled/looked around the lobby for anything from 2 minutes to 30 minutes and was then shown to her seat. She sat there for a minimum of 20 minutes through the first act and it wasn't until one of the singers on stage saw her and complained.

If it is so against the law how was she allowed into the building in the first place? How was she allowed to get to her seat passing (presumably) many other people and then allowed to sit there for 20 minutes surrounded by many others without it being an issue.

Your post is just a ramble with no real retort of points I made.

Seriously. Asking about how she got to her seat if it is "so against the law"?

Also, so what if it's just the opera? It's a public place where safety is an issue and which could be robbed in the same way a shop or a bank could be robbed. Some people do not feel safe when a stranger is unidentifiable and Muslims need to respect that France has put a law in place with those people in mind.

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-10-2014 1:07pm

UCDCritic wrote: »

I want to refer to a great video by Sam Harris who is an expert on the subject, this is the truth about Islam

AHHHHHHHHHHH HA HA HA

Using Sam Harris as your go to "expert" on Islam :pac:

RobYourBuilder · 21-10-2014 1:07pm

mike_ie wrote: »

Indeed. The more of I read of Mr. Harris's world view right now, the more I realise that he would have fitted in quite well in 1930's Germany....

Same could be said of hundreds of millions of muslims. Death to those apostates. Death to homosexuals. Death to jews. And much more.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

wes · 21-10-2014 1:13pm

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Same could be said of hundreds of millions of muslims. Death to those apostates. Death to homosexuals. Death to jews. And much more.

So, this make it ok for Mr Harris to deny the existence of hatred against Muslims? What exactly does that have to with that? BTW, I take you accept that Mr. Harris's views are unacceptable then? It interesting that you don't actually address what is being said in regards to the views expressed by Mr Harris. Why is that exactly?

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-10-2014 1:16pm

BrokenHero wrote: »

Your post is just a ramble with no real retort of points I made.

Seriously. Asking about how she got to her seat if it is "so against the law"?

Also, so what if it's just the opera? It's a public place where safety is an issue and which could be robbed in the same way a shop or a bank could be robbed. Some people do not feel safe when a stranger is unidentifiable and Muslims need to respect that France has put a law in place with those people in mind.

OK

So why wasn't she stopped the moment she approached the building? They have doormen. ushers, staff walking all over the place including security....why wasn't she approached before the singer on stage noticed her? Is it because just like any other progressive country 99% of the people don't give a **** about a woman wearing a niqab but the 1% of bigots will scream blue murder over it and have people removed.

It looks like some common sense may prevail over this though

http://rt.com/news/197348-france-woman-niqab-opera/

After the incident at the opera, France's ministry of culture said they are drawing up a new set of rules regarding veils for theatres, museums and other public institutions.

wes · 21-10-2014 1:18pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It looks like some common sense may prevail over this though

http://rt.com/news/197348-france-woman-niqab-opera/

Starting to hurt the tourism industry I reckon.......

Tokyo · 21-10-2014 1:20pm

wes wrote: »

Starting to hurt the tourism industry I reckon.......

That's an interesting point actually. I wonder how many people will be in open support of this, if it starts to impact the tourist trade...

remove that niqab or leave!

Comments