how is it reasonable to legislate against cultural attire?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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!'
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!
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
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?
Rosy Posy wrote: » It makes me sick that people dress it up as women's rights.
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.
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.
Carry wrote: » No, I'm not lost. I think the law is rubbish. That was my point.
RobYourBuilder wrote: » The law was not implemented on the basis of womens rights but on security and social cohesion grounds.
fedor.2. wrote: » Well at least you have thought long and hard about it, that's the main thing:rolleyes:
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.
