Burka ban

looksee wrote: »

How on earth would a woman in a burka - with the burka implied restrictions - cope with being authoritative with any men? Would 'ripping off the burka' become the new 'knocking off the policeman's helmet'?

Tactical burqa?

Kinda scary, could work.

Cabaal wrote: »

errrr....can't help but think thats a suicide bomber, the blocks under her vest marked TNT sort of suggest that funnily enough.
SWAT teams etc don't tend to walk around with blocks of TNT like that

Maybe.... though then again it might just be a custom outfit for APB Reloaded

Cabaal wrote: »

errrr....can't help but think thats a suicide bomber, the blocks under her vest marked TNT sort of suggest that funnily enough.

SWAT teams etc don't tend to walk around with blocks of TNT like that

I think its just something someone threw together in a video game. I wasn't expecting people to take it so seriously.

That doesn't leave much to the imagination! Your man in the background looks interested.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

She'd be arrested in an Islamic state and their's nothing bigoted about this statement. It is truth.

Heavens, she wouldn't have to get half way to that to get arrested in a lot of places!

KingBrian2 wrote: »

She'd be arrested in an Islamic state and their's nothing bigoted about this statement. It is truth.

She would. But if someone supports the French laws on burqinis it would be the rankest hypocrisy to object to other states having similar laws to enforce what they consider to be acceptable standards in ladies' swimwear.

smacl wrote: »

Meanwhile, the Christians getting a bit of limelight back...

I think this should be mandatory beachwear throughout the world and their's nothing bigoted about this statement. It is truth.

I've had to ask several women to remove the veil when they've come in to where I work and so out of maybe half a dozen none of them refused although in several cases there were accompanied by their husband looming over them and to whom they often deferred when I was asking them. I have to say I found it difficult dealing with them when the veil was up, not only did it make hearing them difficult (especially with strong pakistani or arab accents) but it's hard to see them as human beings without seeing a face, it's like they become a non-person.

A few weeks ago I was walking along the street when this woman (I presume it was a woman!) in a burka was coming the opposite way along the path accompanied by two pre-teen girls who presumably were her daughters and I thought to myself when I looked at her "Are you going to subject your daughters to becoming non-persons in a few years time?". I couldn't help feeling a bit sad for the two girls knowing what would probably happen them in a few short years.

I'm not sure if this has been posted before but there was an article published on the Irish Times website recently about a relatively secular female muslim's journey on the Hajj. When she describes the clothes she's advised to wear it's pretty much "well don't wear this because you could be sexually assaulted" and "don't wear that because you could be raped"

And the part about the slaughterhouses in Mecca make even an non-vegetarian like me want to retch.

robindch wrote: »

That's what the burka is for - a social marker that the wearer is a lesser human.

Though there aren't many Muslims who'd agree that's what it's for, to be fair. Most would say it's to protect a woman's virtue and modesty. I'd say if a woman wears it to protect her virtue and modesty then that's what it's for, and if someone wears it as a social marker that they're a lesser human, then that's what it's for. But telling someone that they can't choose to wear it because of someone else's opinion of it... well that's treating them as a lesser human anyway, without putting them in a burka.

Absolam wrote: »

Though there aren't many Muslims who'd agree that's what it's for, to be fair. Most would say it's to protect a woman's virtue and modesty. I'd say if a woman wears it to protect her virtue and modesty then that's what it's for

These women have been so indoctrinated by not just their religion but their culture as well that the Burkha (and other garments) are for their benefit, it's like a form of brainwashing.

There's an article on the BBC at the moment about the burkini and an australian female muslim talking about it. She comes out with the same reasoning I've heard other muslim women give on interviews on tv and in print, like it's been so drummed into their brains that it's almost an automatic response

"It is a symbol of my faith, it is a symbol of my religion, it is a symbol of Islam and to go out there and wear the hijab, it helps people focus on what's inside rather than what's on the outside."

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It would be like humans wearing dog collars. No problem with the Hijab which is a fashion accessory. .

It isn't really just a fashion accessory though, it's their culture saying that women's hair is an inherently sexual object, that if they show it men will be inflamed with lust and desire and that if they display their hair they'll be bringing shame upon themselves and their family.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

They are being told not to wear it because it is threatening the secular values of France.

I think the threads gone on long enough now that we know the Burka actually doesn't threaten the secular values of France. And we know the rationale presented to the public by those who brought it in was radically different from the rationale they presented to the ECHR; for the public it was that the veil was "contrary to our values and contrary to the ideals we have of a woman's dignity" and that it was "simply a prison for women who wear it"; the ban was presented as liberating Muslim women from oppression, and protecting them from being forced to wear veils, even if they didn't realise they were being forced and thought they were choosing to do so. For the ECHR it was to pursue the legitimate aims of “public safety” and the “protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.
As regards the aim of “public safety”, to satisfy the need to identify individuals in order to prevent danger for the safety of persons and property and to combat identity fraud (Considered not “necessary in a democratic society” by the ECHR who said it was proportionate only in a context where there was a general threat to public safety.)
As regards “protection of the rights and freedoms of others”, the need to ensure “respect for the minimum set of values of an open democratic society”; respect for gender equality, respect for human dignity and respect for the minimum requirements of life in society (or of “living together”). The ECHR dismissed the first two, but accepted that the barrier raised against others by a veil concealing the face in public could undermine the notion of “living together”. So the grounds the ECHR accepted had nothing at all to do with secular values.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Burka is a symbol of submission.

To some. And a symbol of freedom and godliness to others. What it symbolises depends entirely on the person who views it as a symbol.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It would be like humans wearing dog collars.

We do let humans wear dog collars if they want to though... so in France, not quite like it. Because there you're ok to wear a dog collar, but wear a burka and you can be fined and sent for 'education'.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

No problem with the Hijab which is a fashion accessory. Other examples would include if men went around dressed as SS officers like good old Prince Harry tried to do at a fancy dress and he was pillared by the press.

He wasn't fined was he? Or forced to attend citizenship education to correct his point of view? So not exactly the same kind of thing... good old Harry gets to choose.