wes wrote: » Starting to hurt the tourism industry I reckon.......
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » It looks like some common sense may prevail over this thoughhttp://rt.com/news/197348-france-woman-niqab-opera/
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.
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.
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.
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....
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
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.
wes wrote: » Interesting that he denies a very real bigotry, that clearly exists.
BrokenHero wrote: » news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/8665873.stm
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.
mike_ie wrote: » Clearly a man open to rational thought on the matter then...
RobYourBuilder wrote: » ...But I'm sure some farmer in Ireland knows better.
(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".
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.
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.
Is that supposed to make it acceptable? You have no point here
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.
Don't forget they are living in our culture now
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?
RobYourBuilder wrote: » The law has nothing to do with womens rights. It's based on security fears and to help aid social cohesion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
FTA69 wrote: » It's a bit rich to bang on about women's rights while also declaring what they can and can't wear.
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?
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
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.
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?
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.
