remove that niqab or leave!

smurfjed · 20-10-2014 11:06pm

how is it reasonable to legislate against cultural attire?

So you are agreeing that its cultural attire rather than religious attire?

Tokyo · 20-10-2014 11:08pm

looking_around wrote: »

So hiding ones identity, which it is, isn't a safety risk? What if it's the middle of the night? a shop? places with a uniform? employees who deal with customes, can they wear it?

Is not easier to say in public this isn't allowed full stop rather than...well it's not allowed at xyz..but can be in abc, unless dfe.
That's just far too much hassle to appease a religion.

By that logic I could argue towards a ban on hats and big sunglasses then, as worn together they post the exact same 'risk' in terms of identity. But that's not the issue here - as I said, there are legitimate reasons to ask to see somebody's face, and as long as you have a non-bigoted reason to require the head to be uncovered, even a trivial one, and it applies to everyone, then it's not an issue, and I imagine that most people who wear a niqab would be happy to comply.

What we have here though is a general ban - those who wish to wear a niqab for whatever reasons effectively can't do so outside of their homes and as such, infringing upon a person's right to choose what she wears. In other words, forcing a woman not to wear a burka or niqab contravenes a woman's right to choose in the same way that forcing her to wear one does - the reason being trotted out for this law in the first place.

Little CuChulainn · 20-10-2014 11:16pm

It makes sense that a person going into a bank, or driving a car should be identifiable. I mean, anyone could be under the head cover. I also think the whole thing is a bit degrading. It's a practice designed to put women down. It's like forcing a woman to walk around with a collar and lead so she doesn't stray. It's all very well to say they choose to dress that way but it's more a case of Stockholm Syndrome.

On the other hand, a woman should not be victimised by people for choosing to wear it when appropriate. It's like blaming an abuse victim for their behaviour when they don't really have much control over it.

pablo128 · 20-10-2014 11:25pm

Nino Brown wrote: »

They're dead right, walk into an opera in a Muslim country wearing an mini skirt and see what happens.

Amelie Acidic Sheet wrote: »

This is probably the most stupid argument I've ever heard.

pablo128 wrote: »

Really? A workmates sister was over in an Arab country for some competition, and had a female shopkeeper spit at her just because she had a tattoo on her wrist.

The shopkeeper did ask first if it was real though.

Billy86 wrote: »

So do you agree with the shopkeeper or disagree with the opera house and this French law?

Billy, can you see now why I posted?

No I don't agree with anyone spitting at a teenager especially as she was a customer in her shop. And yes, I agree with the Operas stance on the subject. If it was a man wearing a balaclava or a helmet, the outcome would have been the same.

fedor.2. · 20-10-2014 11:32pm

Carry wrote: »

I didn't read all of the so far eight pages of this thread, the first one was enough to be predictable.

But let me tell you this:
I am deeply offended by my new neighbour who put a giant (and awfully ugly and kitschy) marian statue in front of his house in our small and private estate, which I can't avoid seeing every day, and even more offending he is covered in (American) patriotic and religious tattoos - though thankfully not visible in winter. And he is permanently offending me with his "christian love", being all over me like a psycho rash.

What shall I do? Refuse to sing in the opera until he removes the statue and his tattoos? Can't sing anyway.

Will anyone protect my sense of being offended? Will anyone rush to my rescue and demand a law against religious traditions which don't agree with me?

No. Stupid of me to ask.

Perhaps you should try reading the rest of the thread. You seem a bit lost. The lady in question was breaking the law, it's pretty simple really.

Hitchens · 20-10-2014 11:43pm

She was not arrested as far as we know, even though she was breaking the law.

She was asked to remove the hiqab or leave the theatre.

'He told her that in France there is a ban of this nature, asked her to either uncover her face or leave the auditorium. 'The man asked the woman to get up, they left. It was unpleasant getting her to leave.
'But there was a misunderstanding of the law and the lady either had to respect it or leave,'

Rosy Posy · 20-10-2014 11:44pm

SuperOito wrote: »

Translation:

The law doesn't bow to nor has any regard for religion.

You'd be commending that if it was Ireland's Government vs Catholicism, but seeing as how it's Islam that are offended...well, you know the rest.

That's not really analogous. No one's asking France to adopt Sharia law. There's a difference between allowing freedom of religious expression and allowing religious beliefs to influence law-making. One is permissive (wear a niquab, orange robes, a crucifix, a turban a yarmulke, whatever), the other oppressive (denying abortion, divorce, education, gay marriage...). Should we remove the influence of, say Catholicism in Irish law or Sharia in an Islamic country, those who still wish to obide by them may- no one's going to force you to get an abortion or fast during Ramadan. Banning the niquab in public is suppressing freedom of religious expression and is actively anti-women. I'm no fan of Islam and have issues with it's treatment of women but I'm a libertarian and believe that, within the boundaries of basic respect and safety, people should be able to do what they want.

fedor.2. · 20-10-2014 11:45pm

Pretty fair of them not to arrest her. Good policing right there.

fedor.2. · 20-10-2014 11:46pm

Rosy Posy wrote: »

That's not really analogous. No one's asking France to adopt Sharia law. There's a difference between allowing freedom of religious expression and allowing religious beliefs to influence law-making. One is permissive (wear a niquab, orange robes, a crucifix, a turban a yarmulke, whatever), the other oppressive (denying abortion, divorce, education, gay marriage...). Should we remove the influence of, say Catholicism in Irish law or Sharia in an Islamic country, those who still wish to obide by them may- no one's going to force you to get an abortion or fast during Ramadan. Banning the niquab in public is suppressing freedom of religious expression and is actively anti-women. I'm no fan of Islam and have issues with it's treatment of women but I'm a libertarian and believe that, within the boundaries of basic respect and safety, people should be able to do what they want.

Thankfully you're in the minority

Yarf Yarf · 20-10-2014 11:50pm

"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?

fedor.2. · 20-10-2014 11:54pm

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?

Whatever about anything else, it almost certainly does not go both ways.

Snake Plisken · 21-10-2014 12:01am

Ah feck another Muslim thread and the usual staunch defence of Islam from the usual suspects, I won't mention names as they get upset and will report me!
Delighted she got thrown out for wearing that Halloween mask! At least the French are trying to do something about this issue!

Yarf Yarf · 21-10-2014 12:13am

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Ah feck another Muslim thread and the usual staunch defence of Islam from the usual suspects, I won't mention names as they get upset and will report me!
Delighted she got thrown out for wearing that Halloween mask! At least the French are trying to do something about this issue!

Saying that people are entitled to wear whatever they want in a free country is a "staunch defence of Islam"? Get a grip.

pablo128 · 21-10-2014 12:15am

Yarf Yarf wrote: »

Saying that people are entitled to wear whatever they want in a free country is a "staunch defence of Islam"? Get a grip.

They ARE allowed to wear anything they want. They're just not allowed to cover their face.

Nino Brown · 21-10-2014 12:16am

Yarf Yarf wrote: »

Saying that people are entitled to wear whatever they want in a free country is a "staunch defence of Islam"? Get a grip.

What's your definition of a free country? Every country has laws. In France it is illegal to wear a niqab, she broke the law.

It's also illegal to wear an SS uniform in France, where are all the nazi supporters out there?

Rosy Posy · 21-10-2014 12:22am

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It makes sense that a person going into a bank, or driving a car should be identifiable. I mean, anyone could be under the head cover. I also think the whole thing is a bit degrading. It's a practice designed to put women down. It's like forcing a woman to walk around with a collar and lead so she doesn't stray. It's all very well to say they choose to dress that way but it's more a case of Stockholm Syndrome.

On the other hand, a woman should not be victimised by people for choosing to wear it when appropriate. It's like blaming an abuse victim for their behaviour when they don't really have much control over it.

Do you realise how patronising this is? 'Women! You can't possibly know what you want for yourselves, you must need a man or an institution, be it a religion or state, to tell you what to do!'

The Diabolical Monocle · 21-10-2014 12:26am

Fair points from both sides.
Very well, vote with your feet time.

Your opera can allow niquabs in it, but I (and 99% of the audience) will be at the other opera, coffee shop, lap dancing club down the street.

Best of luck for you and the future of your business.

fedor.2. · 21-10-2014 12:28am

Rosy Posy wrote: »

Do you realise how patronising this is? 'Women! You can't possibly know what you want for yourselves, you must need a man or an institution, be it a religion or state, to tell you what to do!'

They can't cover their faces, that's it. Why are you finding that so hard to understand.

The fact you're focusing on this, and not the real sexism and misogyny that exists in the Islamic faith says it all really

gormdubhgorm · 21-10-2014 12:33am

Hitchens wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2799981/woman-thrown-paris-opera-cast-refused-perform-unless-removed-muslim-veil.html

Fair play to the cast of the opera and the security people for upholding the law.

Hopefully, we would do the same here!

Allez France!

I love the (file picture is not of the woman involved) caption - just in case there is a mistaken identity!

Rosy Posy · 21-10-2014 12:35am

fedor.2. wrote: »

They can't cover their faces, that's it. Why are you finding that so hard to understand.

The fact you're focusing on this, and not the real sexism and misogyny that exists in the Islamic faith says it all really

As I already stated, I do have a problem with the status of women in Islam, but all this law is doing for them is forcing them to remain indoors if they want to keep purdah. It makes me sick that people dress it up as women's rights.

nyarlothothep · 21-10-2014 12:35am

T-K-O wrote: »

This is fair but I am curious, what about in a situation that most would consider a security risk. I.E Airports, Banks etc, should we still respect their religious beliefs?

Difficult one to pin down but where the risks outweigh freedom of choice then they shouldn't be allowed to wear it. For example, I remember reading that female muslim doctors weren't washing their arms in hospitals due to some religious prohibition which could lead to contamination/spread of diseases in hospitals. In this case their religious beliefs shouldn't be accepted if they endanger the lives of others or present unacceptable risks, determining what's unacceptable is problemmatic.

RobYourBuilder · 21-10-2014 12:35am

Rosy Posy wrote: »

Do you realise how patronising this is? 'Women! You can't possibly know what you want for yourselves, you must need a man or an institution, be it a religion or state, to tell you what to do!'

They can't wear masks, helmets, balaclavas, niqābs and other veils covering the face in public places, except under specified circumstances or they need to for work. Such oppression.

RobYourBuilder · 21-10-2014 12:38am

Rosy Posy wrote: »

It makes me sick that people dress it up as women's rights.

The law was not implemented on the basis of womens rights but on security and social cohesion grounds.

fedor.2. · 21-10-2014 12:39am

Rosy Posy wrote: »

As I already stated, I do have a problem with the status of women in Islam, but all this law is doing for them is forcing them to remain indoors if they want to keep purdah. It makes me sick that people dress it up as women's rights.

Well, you should get a stronger stomach. If you honestly believe that most of these women choose to dress like that freely, then you're seriously deluded.

It's ingrained from birth, God forbid they show abit of flesh and lead those poor vulnerable men to temptation. They are cloth prisons.

Carry · 21-10-2014 12:41am

fedor.2. wrote: »

Perhaps you should try reading the rest of the thread. You seem a bit lost. The lady in question was breaking the law, it's pretty simple really.

No, I'm not lost. I think the law is rubbish. That was my point.

fedor.2. · 21-10-2014 12:44am

Carry wrote: »

No, I'm not lost. I think the law is rubbish. That was my point.

Well at least you have thought long and hard about it, that's the main thing:rolleyes:

RobYourBuilder · 21-10-2014 12:50am

Carry wrote: »

No, I'm not lost. I think the law is rubbish. That was my point.

The law was passed 335-1 in the French National Assembly and 246–1 by the senate. It was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights last summer and is supported by 80% of the French electorate. It's not going to be repealed anytime soon.

Rosy Posy · 21-10-2014 1:06am

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

The law was not implemented on the basis of womens rights but on security and social cohesion grounds.

No, but in the process it oppresses women. I'm not crazy about the idea of purdah and in an ideal world Islam would come around to a more egalitarian way of thinking, but laws like this exacerbate the problem and polarise rather than cohere.

Carry · 21-10-2014 1:10am

fedor.2. wrote: »

Well at least you have thought long and hard about it, that's the main thing:rolleyes:

Oh, i did, as we all do in AH, don't we, dear?

I think that a woman forced to adhere to a dress code, be it by religion, by culture, by fashion or by horny men, or even by law, should actually do as she pleases and show them the finger.

Going to the opera in a traditional attire of which origin whatsowever certainly is no threat to western culture. But then the French tend to overdo things. It's all opera to them

And the virtual Irish like to do as the French do ... not much success outside of Boards, though.

Btw, I once was looked upon with disdain and nearly thrown out when I went to a performance in an opera house in jeans. Jeans! Imagine that! How outrageous and high-brow culture-threatening!

I hate it, when men AND the law are telling women what to wear in societies which pride themselves of democratic freedom. *

Looking at some men I sometimes secretely wish there would be a law for niqabs for them - or at least a paper bag.

*It's different in cases of identy, though, no question about that.

Rosy Posy · 21-10-2014 1:11am

fedor.2. wrote: »

Well, you should get a stronger stomach. If you honestly believe that most of these women choose to dress like that freely, then you're seriously deluded.

It's ingrained from birth, God forbid they show abit of flesh and lead those poor vulnerable men to temptation. They are cloth prisons.

Wouldn't it be better to empower and educate them to change their own culture from within rather than to disenfranchise them? Better to be allowed freedom of movement in a cloth prison than to be confined to your home in a prison with walls.

remove that niqab or leave!

Comments