Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 53

Thread: Saudi Arabia not observing the silence

  1. #21
    Club Member backstothewall's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,914
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    143
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    399
    Thanked in
    261 Posts
    This Burka stuff is nonsense folks.

    Middle eastern society does indeed compel women to wear some form of hijab. But it does so in much the same way as western society compels both male and female to cover our genitals. If it is my wish to let everything hang loose I'll soon find myself standing in front of a judge.

    There are other civilisations and other cultures where it is totally acceptable for a man to walk around with his meat and 2 veg on show, or for a woman not to cover her breasts. In fact there are cultures where it is odd to see anything else. We all know that if one of those gentlemen from some Amazonian tribe gets off a plane in Heathrow or JFK he is going to have to comply with western standards of dress before he gets out of the building. That sort of dress is considered haram in our culture.

    We also know that if someone from Europe or North America finds himself travelling to the Amazon he isn't going to feel comfortable wearing nothing more than a necklace, and will probably stick with his jeans or a pair of shorts at best.

    Similarly we all know that it is considered acceptable for women to expose their breasts on the beach in Europe. Is a Spanish woman oppressed if the same thing isn't allowed in the United States? Or Rossnowlagh?

    This compulsion to comply with the dress code of western society exists but it does not amount to oppression of men or women. To suggest it does is ridiculous.

    I don't know if there are many Arab women being forced to wear a Burka or not. But I do know that it is a value of our society that people can wear whatever they please so long as genitals are covered up. And I also know that the history of westerners trying to Arab society isn't a great one.

  2. #22
    Biased against YOUR club pineapple stu's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    In the long grass
    Posts
    29,498
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,252
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,441
    Thanked in
    1,511 Posts
    Not entirely sure what your point is tbh?

    First off, the hijab and burka are different, if related, things. The hijab is just the headdress; not a million miles off a granny shawl. They can actually be very fashionable, although I don't agree with its rigid compulsoriness in certain places (this is an example), especially for visiting foreigners, but hey, if you are visiting, you know what the rules are in advance, and you always have the choice not to visit.

    The burka is the full cover - face, hands, the lot. It incorporates a hijab, but goes a lot further.

    You are right that there are differing standards of dress modesty in various cultures - but I don't think your comparison of genital covering is really appropriate. The main reason I'd give is that genital covering is applied to both sexes, whereas the burqa is openly misogynistic. There is no comparative requirement for men. And that ties in with the more openly misogynistic parts of the Quran quoted earlier. (Genitals are also associated with more intimate, personal, acts, and also with disease - whereas showing face and making eye contact is actually a factor in building basic trust, and covering your face naturally gets in the way of this trust)

    This is not a European thing either. The burqa is banned in many countries worldwide, including Cameroon, Chad, Gabon and Congo, albeit that in those places, the ban was because the burqa was being used to disguise suicide bombers and aid terrorism.

    It was banned in Austria only a few weeks ago. The spokesperson for the Islamic Religious Community in Austria criticised the ban, saying it restricted some women to their homes. Think about that - this is the spokesperson for the Muslim community in Austria saying that for some women, the only alternatives for them were (a) wear a burqa in public or (b) not go out in public at all. If only there was another way! And this approach is the very definition of oppressive, which you (I think) try to deny that a burqa is.

    You say you don't know if there's many women forced to wear the burqa - but have a guess. What do you think? Honestly? Do you think the same women are happy being the victims of domestic violence, as per my last post?

    We live in a mad world where, for example, gender quotas are being pushed - with the argument of empowering women, even though the concept is inherently sexist - while at the same time the burqa can be dismissed as grand because sure it's not our culture. (It could be just me, but the arguments seem to come from the same spectrum of society as well) It is absolutely not grand, and absolutely should be banned. Comparing it to walking down the street topless, or suggesting that the view it should be banned is because of some western repressed sexuality issues, is disingenuous and indeed actively harmful.

  3. Thanks From:


  4. #23
    Club Member backstothewall's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,914
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    143
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    399
    Thanked in
    261 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple stu View Post
    Not entirely sure what your point is tbh?

    First off, the hijab and burka are different, if related, things. The hijab is just the headdress; not a million miles off a granny shawl. They can actually be very fashionable, although I don't agree with its rigid compulsoriness in certain places (this is an example), especially for visiting foreigners, but hey, if you are visiting, you know what the rules are in advance, and you always have the choice not to visit.

    The burka is the full cover - face, hands, the lot. It incorporates a hijab, but goes a lot further.

    You are right that there are differing standards of dress modesty in various cultures - but I don't think your comparison of genital covering is really appropriate. The main reason I'd give is that genital covering is applied to both sexes, whereas the burqa is openly misogynistic. There is no comparative requirement for men. And that ties in with the more openly misogynistic parts of the Quran quoted earlier. (Genitals are also associated with more intimate, personal, acts, and also with disease - whereas showing face and making eye contact is actually a factor in building basic trust, and covering your face naturally gets in the way of this trust).
    I used the word hijab deliberately as it can describe the act of women covering up generally.

    It's fine in our society for male nipples to be on show. A man isn't going to find himself in a police car being told to cover himself up with a blanket if he decided to walk down the street on a summers day with no top on. The same doesn't apply to women, but i don't think significant numbers of either men or women would consider this to be openly misogynistic, despite there being passages in the bible this could be tied into.

    I'm not saying that the Burka is or isn't oppressive. I don't think it is possible to say that any item of clothing is or isn't oppressive by virtue of being worn. These people come from a different society, which frankly none of us understand. There are women being forced to wear the thing in public, which is obviously awful, but there are also women who would not feel comfortable being in public without one. If it is banned there are women who will no longer allowed outside the house by the men controlling them, but there will also be women who will no longer feel able to go out in public because they don't feel comfortable without one. I'm unclear how a ban helps either group of people.

    A ban probably wouldn't change outcomes for women very much at all. Some people would be better of, but some would be worse off. But if we do nothing we can maintain out values that people can wear whatever clothes they like, and in time I think these communities will gradually become integrated into our society and we won't see this issue anymore.
    Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.

  5. Thanks From:


  6. #24
    Biased against YOUR club pineapple stu's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    In the long grass
    Posts
    29,498
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,252
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,441
    Thanked in
    1,511 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by backstothewall View Post
    I used the word hijab deliberately as it can describe the act of women covering up generally.
    But it is fundamentally different to the denial of face that is the burqa?

    Quote Originally Posted by backstothewall View Post
    It's fine in our society for male nipples to be on show. A man isn't going to find himself in a police car being told to cover himself up with a blanket if he decided to walk down the street on a summers day with no top on.
    Pretty weak argument to be honest. It in no way compares to the covering up of an entire person of one gender, de-humanising them and removing their connections with society, as I've outlined.

    Quote Originally Posted by backstothewall View Post
    but there are also women who would not feel comfortable being in public without one. If it is banned there are women who will no longer allowed outside the house by the men controlling them, but there will also be women who will no longer feel able to go out in public because they don't feel comfortable without one. I'm unclear how a ban helps either group of people.
    Imagine a non-Muslim man who insists his wife can only leave the house if she wears a blanket over her entire body, and even then possibly only if she has supervision. That man would quite rightly be arrested and jailed for domestic abuse - regardless of whether the woman has developed a form of agoraphobia which means she no longer feels comfortable in the open. In fact, it's often a symptom of being jailed or cooped up - people can find it difficult at first to deal with the outside world - but that's never been a justification for allowing the imprisonment to continue. Why should this be different just because it involves a Muslim?

    Quote Originally Posted by backstothewall View Post
    But if we do nothing we can maintain out values that people can wear whatever clothes they like, and in time I think these communities will gradually become integrated into our society and we won't see this issue anymore.
    Again, bull****. The idea that we should ignore such behaviour and hope that the perpetrators will ultimately accept our ways and integrate is as wishy-washy and useless as sending thoughts and prayers after another gun massacre in the US.

    And in the meantime, the view that we can't challenge this kind of culture - not just Muslim culture, but any such culture - is a factor in the likes of the Rotherham sex ring going unchallenged for as long as it did.

  7. #25
    Club Member backstothewall's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,914
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    143
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    399
    Thanked in
    261 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple stu View Post
    Imagine a non-Muslim man who insists his wife can only leave the house if she wears a blanket over her entire body, and even then possibly only if she has supervision. That man would quite rightly be arrested and jailed for domestic abuse - regardless of whether the woman has developed a form of agoraphobia which means she no longer feels comfortable in the open. In fact, it's often a symptom of being jailed or cooped up - people can find it difficult at first to deal with the outside world - but that's never been a justification for allowing the imprisonment to continue. Why should this be different just because it involves a Muslim?
    Who said it should be any different for muslims. In any case we already have plenty of laws to deal with this sort of scenario.

    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple stu View Post
    And in the meantime, the view that we can't challenge this kind of culture - not just Muslim culture, but any such culture - is a factor in the likes of the Rotherham sex ring going unchallenged for as long as it did.
    Bull****. There have been plenty of examples of children in care being abused by white christian european types and exactly the same thing happened. A convenient excuse used by those who didn't do their job because they looked at the kids in questions as being a step or 2 above feral animals.

    If you don't like the burka my advice is that you don't wear one. If anyone is being compelled to wear one that is a different matter but we already have laws covering that and that it not what you are suggesting. Legislation to ban particular types of clothing is a ridiculous suggestion which runs contrary to the values of Irish society. People can choose to wear whatever they damn well like here.
    Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.

  8. Thanks From:


  9. #26
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,500
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,383
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,725
    Thanked in
    2,277 Posts
    There are quite a few posts directed my way in this thread to which I've not had the opportunity to reply properly yet; apologies for the lengthy delay, but I'll respond to them directly when I get a bit more time.

    In the meantime, just a bit on those questions of mine that angered P_Stu above... Fair enough, Stu; your motive for banning the burqa isn't so that you can lasciviously ogle at Muslim women's jaw-lines, but I do find your particular and disproportionate preoccupation with the attire of a minority of Muslim women a bit odd. Think about how a Muslim woman who has chosen* to wear a burqa would feel upon being instructed to remove it by a Western non-Muslim male; you're essentially violating or attempting to spoil her sense of modesty. Your Western notions of modesty (and, yes, we do have them too) are not universal.

    For someone to so intensely and selectively focus on attire of a minority of Muslim women so that that focus translates into actually wanting to impose a prohibition on the wearing of what is a very specific, symbolic and culturally-significant item of clothing just seems to me like an unpleasant mix of Islamophobia and misogyny. For many men who espouse such dictatorial views - similar to those you've expressed - this is undoubtedly what guides them. Of course, they conceal their prejudice and desire to police how Muslim women present themselves by dressing up their repellent views in the more agreeable language of feminism and female emancipation. The male gaze, a concept women only know too well, is guided by a strong sense or presumption of masculine entitlement.

    This, by Anna Greer, is good:

    However, it is clear, from discussions I’ve had over the years, that it is often white men, who are not exactly torch bearers for the gender equity movement, who object the most vehemently to a woman who removes herself from their gaze. They not only object to face covering shrouds like the burqa, but also to the very common hijab. One problem these men have with the Islamic veil, even if they don’t realise it, is that it challenges their assumed entitlement to gaze upon women’s bodies – not a legitimate reason to object to the burqa. Of course, they co-opt the language of women’s rights to voice their objections....

    This selective concern for women’s rights is merely a way for people to articulate their racist nationalism and it’s an attitude that can be found through all levels of society – in the general populace, in the media, in the government.


    What I said was a way of emphasising the above point - probably articulated better than my attempt - and was a way of challenging the odd selectivity that sees Western men focusing their indignation specifically upon Muslim bodies and dress, but I accept I could have done so more tactfully, less crudely or mischievously and without the loaded questions or personalised innuendo. Fair enough; apologies.

    *Personal choice, preferably informed, is at the crux of this debate for me, so your attempted analogies (in relation to child marriage and the genital cutting of minors) don't really hold. And free personal choice, despite your doubts over whether or not a burqa can ever be freely worn, is of course possible for masses of Muslim women in France (and the West), which is where we've been talking about. If a veil is being forced upon a woman, I obviously don't condone that, but that's a domestic abuse issue and there are laws to deal with that. The issue here is about choice and personal freedom. If that is being compromised, I obviously won't defend that.

    The protestations of which you speak aren't my protestations. It's not my "bizarre suggestion". I'm simply repeating what I've been told by Muslims and have even quoted veil-wearing Muslim women for you. If you chose not to read what I posted in reply to your expressed opinion, that's up to you, but you could learn a lot from such voices. They know better than you or I as to why they wear the burqa because, after all, they're the ones wearing it. I've provided plenty of evidence - words straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak - to demonstrate that the wearing of a burqa can be and is a choice for plenty of Muslim women.

    Perhaps, in your opinion, the burqa inherently dehumanises all wearers. In the opinion of many wearers, however, it provides them with a sense of empowerment as they feel they are no longer subjected to the male gaze. It enables them to take control of who can and can't view their body. I'm certain it acts as a socio-cultural identifier or uniform for many too, just like the habit might for a nun. To believe that it isn't inherently possible for a Muslim woman to voluntarily opt to wear a veil by virtue of her being a Muslim is a profoundly patronising and paternalistic position that infantilises Muslim women.

    I'm not making excuses for anything. My issue is that I get an over-riding sense that you focus your moral distaste disproportionately towards Muslims, both in the West and Middle East or you hold Muslims to different standards and apply one rule to them but an altogether more sympathetic one to those you regard as "us", despite the fact Westerners can be and are guilty of the very same things of which you accuse Muslims (including child marriage and infant genital cutting).

    It just sits uneasy with me as I get a whiff of infantilisation, paternalisation, cultural supremacism and that old imperialistic/colonialist subtext of "needing to civilise the natives" (in spite of imperialism's own inherent barbarism) off it. You present Muslim women as victims of a false consciousness who lack agency and who are participating in their own oppression whilst seemingly seeing Western women as immune from this. There's not just a moralistic and Islamophobic arrogance in that; it's indicative of double standards. It's always easy to target your disgust at foreigners or the "other" whose culture we don't really understand, but we can be prone to blind-spots when it comes to looking back at ourselves in the mirror.

    Besides, thousands of practicing Muslim women in France and elsewhere (including the West and Muslim-majority countries) wear no veil at all without issue, so this alleged pressure or enforcement of which you speak (to wear the veil) evidently isn't universal. This notion of universal pressure is a figment of your imagination. I get the impression you don't know or talk to many Muslims. Do you actually know any even? Genuine question.

    Plenty of Muslim women at my uni and where I worked in Manchester wore no veil at all. Many dressed in Western-style attire. None were subject to the threat of death from anyone. Or, if they were, they very explicitly and publicly rebelled against it with ease and without any apparent fear on a daily basis. They're still alive today, unsurprisingly.

    To mention the death penalty in the context of this debate is a total red herring. I'm sorry, but it's sheer and utter sensationalised nonsense born out of pure ignorance. If one of those aforementioned women, who are evidently under no pressure whatsoever to wear a burqa, voluntarily decided to wear one, would you still take issue with her freely-made personal choice? It would be pretty illiberal and intolerant of you to do so, but, if you would, why so? It seems to me that it's just because they're from a different culture to your own; a culture that you consider to be outside the "norm", a culture that you don't really understand and a culture that you don't really want to understand. Of course, you're entitled to your prejudices, but I just don't think you can square them with previous claims you made about championing free expression, opposing gender control and so forth.

    Have you even thought about the practicalities of a burqa ban? How would it help women exactly? Say, a Muslim woman is found to be wearing a burqa in public in spite of a ban in that jurisdiction... Seeing as you advocate the ban, what sort of penalty would you threaten to impose upon her? A fine? A prison term? Who's that helping? Nobody.

    Such would only render women who wear the burqa more invisible, particularly if they're already wearing it under pressure. It'd alienate them. They'd refuse to participate in public life (or would be compelled not to if pressure to wear a burqa is being exerted upon them by another party). You can't credibly argue that you're emancipating women by treating them in such a way that your ban would logically necessitate. So, not only is it hypocritical; it's also impractical, logically contradictory and counter-productive.

    See, I think the burqa ban is really just about helping bigoted white "Christian" Westerners feel more comfortable about themselves and their places of dwelling by removing visible signs of Muslim identity from a public realm they arrogantly assume to be entirely their own.

  10. #27
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,500
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,383
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,725
    Thanked in
    2,277 Posts
    Just one final point for now (to P_Stu); you can read what you want here and I'll respond to what I want in the manner I choose, unless the mods have some issue with the manner in which I'm responding (although I don't see why there should be an issue). That's how forums operate. If you'd rather not defend your points when challenged on them, that's completely your call, but mocking me for essentially asking (or reasonably expecting) you to defend your publicly-stated positions and continually criticising me for paying you and your opinions - some of which I find troubling, prejudicial and profoundly disagreeable - the respect of a detailed challenge is both poor form and pretty lame. If you're not prepared to defend your position - the "truth" of which is not self-evident, believe it or not - then why bother posting it in the first place? If you don't have time, just say you don't have time. That'd be fine and perfectly understandable, but it's your issue ultimately, so please don't try to shift whatever frustrations you might have over your opinion being challenged on to me or make your unwillingness to defend yourself about me (as if I'm to blame) by mocking me or trying to curtail me through sarcastic attempts to belittle and embarrass me.

  11. #28
    Biased against YOUR club pineapple stu's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    In the long grass
    Posts
    29,498
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,252
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,441
    Thanked in
    1,511 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post
    Fair enough, Stu; your motive for banning the burqa isn't so that you can lasciviously ogle at Muslim women's jaw-lines, but...
    Is that it? Seriously, that's the best you can come up with? Just a reminder of what you posted -

    Why do you feel entitled to view parts of their body they don't want you to see? Do you feel similarly about non-Muslim women; that they should uncover or dress themselves to suit your preferences?
    That's an utterly disgraceful comment which deserves an apologetic retraction, not this kind of wishy-washy fudge. I'm raising serious issues about domestic abuse here, and all you think it's ok to accuse me of some manner of sexual deviancy? You don't get to back out of a comment like that with hands up, laughing and saying "Oh ok, fair enough - but..."

    I'll say it again - that comment is a ****ing disgrace, and completely undermines your posts on the topic, which are nothing but a continual stream of west-shaming - the latest being -

    See, I think the burqa ban is really just about helping bigoted white "Christian" Westerners feel more comfortable about themselves and their places of dwelling by removing visible signs of Muslim identity from a public realm they arrogantly assume to be entirely their own.
    I'm sorry - objecting to the burqa is bigotry now? I have outlined my very clear objections to the burqa on, primarily, domestic abuse grounds, but you twist that to conclude I'm bigoted? What on earth are you talking about?

    You say you know plenty of Muslims who don't feel under the threat of the death penalty, concluding that -

    And free personal choice, despite your doubts over whether or not a burqa can ever be freely worn, is of course possible for masses of Muslim women in France (and the West), which is where we've been talking about
    Of course free choice is possible. But your example of Muslims you know who don't feel under the threat of the death penalty by forfeiting the burqa can't lead to the conclusion that this means there is no such threat. It's dangerously false logic. There can of course be Muslims - those you'd be more likely to know, arguably - for whom the death penalty is a cultural issue, but that doesn't mean that there aren't those for whom it is an issue. Honour killings, for example, are very much an issue in the UK among the Muslim community. That's people murdering their own family members - sisters, wives or daughters; almost exclusively women - because they've failed to adhere to Muslim norms. That's not, as you suggest, "sheer and utter sensationalised nonsense born out of pure ignorance" - that is fact. There are plenty of examples here of people in the UK being murdered for being too westernised, having a boyfriend, not wanting to go in for an arranged child marriage.

    Numbers are hard to confirm, and convictions hard to obtain, because the communities involved will keep shtum about it - which is of course part of why they're an issue. But it's reckoned at at least one person a month in the UK is murdered by a brother, an uncle, a father, a cousin for, effectively, un-Islamic conduct (and these crimes are almost exclusively involving Muslims) Then there are maybe a further 200-300 honour crimes a month - imprisonment and physical abuse in the main.

    And look at the Austrian Muslim official I quoted, who indicated that the choices for some Muslim women are either wear the burqa or not be let out of the house. Is there freedom of choice in these cases, do you think? My arse there is.

    You will, of course, try to justify this by pointing to the fact that non-Muslims kill each other too - and indeed they do, but not in this regular manner. Not in this somewhat culturally accepted way of an entire family colluding to murder someone because their honour has been shamed by, say, a female relative getting a text from a boy.

    And this is, by definition, the more radical, conservative interpretation - there are many, many more liberal Muslims, of course, but it is the conservative element that are more likely to hold females in such low regard that they enforce the burqa. Your comparisons go out the window when you refuse to address this aspect of the culture, and instead dismiss talk of this as "troubling, prejudicial and profoundly disagreeable", or "infantilisation, paternalisation, cultural supremacism"

    You're willfully ignoring the counter-issues, instead either blaming everything on the west or throwing personal insults, and that can hardly lead to a full discussion of the issue.

  12. #29
    Club Member backstothewall's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,914
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    143
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    399
    Thanked in
    261 Posts
    PS. I respect you. You are part of the furniture around here, and you usually talk a lot of sense. But this is bordering on the surreal.

    This bit in particular jumped out at me

    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple stu View Post
    You will, of course, try to justify this by pointing to the fact that non-Muslims kill each other too - and indeed they do, but not in this regular manner. Not in this somewhat culturally accepted way of an entire family colluding to murder someone because their honour has been shamed by, say, a female relative getting a text from a boy.
    What you are describing is incredibly rare. I've not been able to find a single example of what you describe in Irish history. It could never be described as regular, and it most certainly is not culturally accepted. When i googled "Ireland Honour Killing" the closest i found was an incident in Drogheda in 2011 when one of those muslim women (who you contend are practically slaves) had thrown her husband out of their flat and presumably moved her new boyfriend in, only for the husband to return and stab them both. Not at all what you describe and something that happens in the non-muslim population fairly frequently. We had a guy plead guilty to murder only this week following a similar case in Portstewart.

    I'll say it again as i think it bears repeating. What you describe has literally never happened in Ireland

    If you want to talk about an example in Ireland of a culturally accepted way of an entire family colluding against a female relative when their honour has been shamed, there is only one place to look. Lets not get sidetracked by that s**tshow but we all know what went on within living memory, from symphysiotomies to septic tanks, and we all know that the people doing it weren't Muslims.
    Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.

  13. Thanks From:


  14. #30
    Biased against YOUR club pineapple stu's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    In the long grass
    Posts
    29,498
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,252
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,441
    Thanked in
    1,511 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by backstothewall View Post
    it most certainly is not culturally accepted.
    In Pakistan, until last year you could kill a family relative and get away without any punishment if another family member pardoned you. But as this kind of killing often involves family collusion, that's pretty much a given. So they're technically illegal (because it's murder), but they were usually brushed under the carpet. How is that not cultural acceptance? It's like drink driving laws in Kerry. (Obviously the Pakistan connection then links in with the large expat population in England)

    I'll say it again as i think it bears repeating. What you describe has literally never happened in Ireland
    Eh? I wasn't talking about Ireland. I was clearly talking about the UK. There are plenty of other European countries where it's a growing problem too, and obviously it's a huge issue in some places in the Middle East - check the link I supplied.

    It is an issue. So freedom of choice is not something that, as Danny suggests, is there for everyone.
    Last edited by pineapple stu; 23/11/2017 at 9:56 PM.

  15. #31
    First Team The Fly's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,151
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    296
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,000
    Thanked in
    532 Posts
    Given that the Current Affairs section seems to be withering on the vine, I intended to create a new thread referencing a recent news item from Denmark which I thought would provoke some interesting debate. Then...I happened to notice this topic at the bottom of the page. (As I read through it I was sure some sort of record was on for an online discussion fulfilling Godwin's Law )

    Anyway, the topic relates to the banning of the burqa and niqab, already mentioned in this thread, and the decision by the Danish government in May of this year to do just that. The new law came into force on August 1st; and one woman became the first person to be charged with wearing a full-face veil in public soon after its enactment. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45064237

    It raises interesting questions around what actually constitutes tolerance; notions of multiculturalism & integration; and, to a degree, immigration itself. What say you?

    (Original story - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44319921)
    Last edited by The Fly; 21/08/2018 at 2:06 AM.

  16. #32
    Seasoned Pro peadar1987's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    2,541
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    742
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    783
    Thanked in
    462 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fly View Post
    Given that the Current Affairs section seems to be withering on the vine, I intended to create a new thread referencing a recent news item from Denmark which I thought would provoke some interesting debate. Then...I happened to notice this topic at the bottom of the page. (As I read through it I was sure some sort of record was on for an online discussion fulfilling Godwin's Law )

    Anyway, the topic relates to the banning of the burqa and niqab, already mentioned in this thread, and the decision by the Danish government in May of this year to do just that. The new law came into force on August 1st; and one woman became the first person to be charged with wearing a full-face veil in public soon after its enactment. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45064237

    It raises interesting questions around what actually constitutes tolerance; notions of multiculturalism & integration; and, to a degree, immigration itself. What say you?

    (Original story - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44319921)
    I totally disagree with the principles behind the burka, but if a woman chooses to wear it, that's her choice and her choice alone. I'd be totally in favour of a law banning people from being coerced into wearing one, probably as part of a wider emotional abuse law, but banning it altogether is reactionary and regressive. And the argument about making it hard to identify people doesn't fly for me. Unless it's a law against all face coverings, balaclavas, bandanas, motorbike helmets and snoods, it's just Islamophobia by the back door.

  17. Thanks From:


  18. #33
    Biased against YOUR club pineapple stu's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    In the long grass
    Posts
    29,498
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,252
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,441
    Thanked in
    1,511 Posts
    Problem is it's very hard to tell if someone is choosing to wear something. Particularly in a culture with such a history of repression of female choice.

    That said, the bans in general tend to be phrased as bans against all face covers.

    The tolerance argument goes both ways. Are we to be tolerant of their ways without any tolerance of our ways in return?

  19. Thanks From:


  20. #34
    First Team The Fly's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,151
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    296
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,000
    Thanked in
    532 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by peadar1987 View Post
    I totally disagree with the principles behind the burka, but if a woman chooses to wear it, that's her choice and her choice alone. I'd be totally in favour of a law banning people from being coerced into wearing one, probably as part of a wider emotional abuse law, but banning it altogether is reactionary and regressive. And the argument about making it hard to identify people doesn't fly for me. Unless it's a law against all face coverings, balaclavas, bandanas, motorbike helmets and snoods, it's just Islamophobia by the back door.
    I'd like to expand on your point regarding the difficulty in identification and posit the following -

    Given that the majority of communication is held to be conveyed through body language/the non-verbal, how would you feel about going for a medical consultation if the doctor is wearing a burqa or niqab?...or, for example, your child being taught in school by a teacher wearing said garment?
    Last edited by The Fly; 22/08/2018 at 11:57 PM.

  21. #35
    Seasoned Pro peadar1987's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    2,541
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    742
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    783
    Thanked in
    462 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple stu View Post
    Problem is it's very hard to tell if someone is choosing to wear something. Particularly in a culture with such a history of repression of female choice.

    That said, the bans in general tend to be phrased as bans against all face covers.

    The tolerance argument goes both ways. Are we to be tolerant of their ways without any tolerance of our ways in return?
    Of course not. But I don't think choosing to wear a burqa is really intolerance of western ways, if the person doing it chooses to abide by principles such as democracy, freedom of religion, rule of law and so on.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fly View Post
    I'd like to expand on your point regarding the difficulty in identification and posit the following -

    Given that the majority of communication is held to be conveyed through body language/the non-verbal, how would you feel about going for a medical consultation if the doctor is wearing a burqa or niqab?...or, for example, your child being taught in school by a teacher wearing said garment?
    I wouldn't mind, so long as the doctor was still able to do their job (I think it's unlikely someone who thinks it's "immodest" to let a man see their cheekbones would ever perform a prostate exam on one, or even use a stethoscope, but you never know). I don't have kids, but I'd be happy enough for someone in a burqa to teach them, so long as they didn't try and indoctrinate the children into their reasons for wearing one, which would be something I would apply to someone of any religion (or indeed political persuasion).

  22. #36
    Biased against YOUR club pineapple stu's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    In the long grass
    Posts
    29,498
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,252
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,441
    Thanked in
    1,511 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by peadar1987 View Post
    Of course not. But I don't think choosing to wear a burqa is really intolerance of western ways.
    I don't think I agree with that tbh, for the reasons I noted earlier on how fundamental facial expressions are to our communications and even trust. I think the burqa is demonstrably incompatible in that regard

  23. #37
    First Team The Fly's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,151
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    296
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,000
    Thanked in
    532 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by peadar1987 View Post
    I wouldn't mind, so long as the doctor was still able to do their job (I think it's unlikely someone who thinks it's "immodest" to let a man see their cheekbones would ever perform a prostate exam on one, or even use a stethoscope, but you never know).
    Fair enough, although I doubt most people would agree with you. Having a consultation with a doctor you can't properly interact with is an obvious and significant issue. (Particularly for the prostate exam! )

    Quote Originally Posted by peadar1987 View Post
    I don't have kids, but I'd be happy enough for someone in a burqa to teach them, so long as they didn't try and indoctrinate the children into their reasons for wearing one, which would be something I would apply to someone of any religion (or indeed political persuasion).
    Your child might not like it though, and because their interaction with said teacher is compromised shall we say, then their education will likely be impaired as a result.

    In any case I find it hard to imagine how a burqa wearing applicant would make it through the interview process for either job. Which probably says something in itself.
    Last edited by The Fly; 25/08/2018 at 4:09 AM.

  24. #38
    Capped Player SkStu's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    11,365
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,148
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,400
    Thanked in
    1,804 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by peadar1987 View Post
    I don't have kids, but I'd be happy enough for someone in a burqa to teach them
    Just want to make sure I understand what you’re saying here.



    The burqa would make you happy enough?

  25. #39
    Seasoned Pro peadar1987's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    2,541
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    742
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    783
    Thanked in
    462 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SkStu View Post
    Just want to make sure I understand what you’re saying here.



    The burqa would make you happy enough?
    Yup, it would.

  26. #40
    Club Member backstothewall's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,914
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    143
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    399
    Thanked in
    261 Posts
    I get that this is a hypothetical, but I'd be a lot more worried about the teacher than the kids! We reduced teachers to attending counselling for a hell of a lot less.
    Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Saudi Arabia Vs Rep Of Ireland
    By thecorner in forum Cork City
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03/12/2003, 12:36 PM
  2. Saudi Sheik
    By Schumi in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07/06/2002, 3:56 PM
  3. Cameroon 1 - 0 Saudi Arabia
    By Wizzard in forum World Cup
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06/06/2002, 3:07 PM
  4. Mighty Saudi Arabia
    By pete in forum World Cup
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03/06/2002, 2:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •