Rosy Posy wrote: » No, but in the process it oppresses women
Originally Posted by fedor.2. View Post 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 wrote: » No, it's not. Not more than wearing wellies in the Irish countryside or a Roman torturous cross around your neck. It might apply to women who are actually forced to cover their heads and body. But what about all the women in Turkey who by law are not allowed to wear a headscarf but are now fighting to do so? What about muslim teacher women who fight in Germany to be allowed to wear a headscarf because they want to? Because they want to be proud of their cultural identy? The whole discussion is double-sided. If a woman is forced to wear a niqab or headscarf, then no. If she wants to, then yes. It's very condescending of mostly male posters to decide what is good for a woman.
Rosy Posy wrote: » 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.
wrote: 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.
bluewolf wrote: » It offends ME
Rosy Posy wrote: » 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.
The Diabolical Monocle wrote: » Its not a gender issue. They didn't want someone, male or female, fully hidden in a cloth bin-liner in their presence. Or in a balaclava, or a scream mask, or in sht stained underpants and a string vest, ergo they were told to dress appropriately for the location/occasion by the other 2999 (?) people or rightly fvck off away from them and the private property they wanted to enter.
Referring to a security guard, Mr Thiellay said: 'He told her that in France there is a ban of this nature, asked her to either uncover her face or leave the auditorium.
mike_ie wrote: » 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.
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.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » and see what the majority/most of these women actually think,
Barely There wrote: » If you choose to live in a Country, you must agree to follow that Countries laws.This woman was obviously aware of the law regarding the wearing of the niquab, but decided that it shouldn't apply to her. Personally I'm delighted that they took a stand against her and made her remove it. Fundamentalists of any creed need to be constant fought and told that their personal beliefs' do not trump the laws of society.
So far unnamed, she is believed to be a well-off woman from a Gulf State, and was attending the performance with a friend.
conorh91 wrote: » I don't really object to someone wearing the niqab at the opera. Perhaps she'd like to nod-off, while attempting to look cultured. Although I do object to the niqab in the street, and in the workplace. Part of living in society means living together, and not going around with a rag over your face, asking to be taken seriously.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » How was she "obviously aware"?
Egginacup wrote: » Since when do you set the rules for living in society? And don't quote the "law" to me. It was "lawful" to persecute Jews in Germany in the 1930's.
Barely There wrote: » Because it's a recent enough law that garnered a large amount of publicity and controversy when it was introduced and it would have directly affect her given that she wears a niquab. Even if she wasn't aware, which I would find difficult to believe, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and she's most certainly aware of the law now - which is nice.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » The only person deluded here is you, why don't we listen to what the muslim womens say about dressing like this? I suggest you and everyone here watch this excellent video and listen to the other side of the story and see what the majority/most of these women actually think,instead of making your own assumptions and try enforce it based on your moral & liberal values"But hold on, you think we're forced [to wear it]? but yet you force us to take it off?"
conorh91 wrote: » I don't really object to someone wearing the niqab at the opera. Perhaps she'd like to nod-off, while attempting to look cultured.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Are you aware of EVERY single little law when you visit a foreign country?
Barely There wrote: » I'm aware of that law in France and I don't even wear a niquab.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Because it made the news here in this country, Did it make the news in the country where the lady is from? You presume she was aware of this law. I'll ask again, are you aware of EVERY law of a country that you plan to visit?
Barely There wrote: » I don't really care whether she was aware of it or not, though I suspect she was - ignorance of the law is no excuse.At the end of the day she's either arrogant or ignorant. The main thing is that she's aware of the law now and I doubt she'll try breaking it again.
suicide_circus wrote: » Freedom isnt free. There is no such thing as an absolutely free society. Societies work due to rules and regulations. Contrary to popular belief freedom does not mean do whatever you want. The niqab is to Islam as the Christmas tree is to Christianity ie: entirely cultural and nothing to do with the actual tenets of the religion. Same as FGM - practiced by some muslims but nothing to do with islam. Should FGM also be allowed in the name of freedom? The sacred cow of multiculturalism, ie: the practice of shoehorning very different people into the same geographical location only works with active give, take, ccompromise and sacrifice from all sides. Like it ir not, this is a measure France have taken.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » I agree FGM is a barbaric practice and should be banned worldwide, If we are going to ban that let's also ban metzitzah b'peh which is linked to the deaths of babies.
