How could you be sure it was a woman standing next to you?
Like I said a lot of men have been caught wearing them.
Do you know that many shopping malls in the UK ban hoodies?
Not just tightly drawn ones.
Do you know that most Muslims are totally against the burkha?
It is nothing to do with religion, it is not a Muslim issue.
It is a cultural mode of dress which has been linked to religion by the extremist salafists.
If you look at the numbers of burkha wearers you will see it is very small. That is because it is not a religious requirement.
What they do do by wearing the burkha however is make the French and everyone else think that it is. They are misleading the public.
If you talk of burkha you automatically think Muslim don’t you?
BUT almost all Muslims are against Burkha.
First off there is no way to tell if it is a woman or a man under the burkha, but why not test it.
Try going up on a elevator in the Empire State building and see if you get stopped, then go in a trench coat.
I know which one I bet gets stopped.
Even Mecca the cradle of Islam prohibits the burkha.
2005 bomber wearing burkha.
i’ll concede the point that i don’t know the gender under a burqa but do you concede to my point that the language of the law wasn’t written with security in mind?
It isn’t the guidelines, it is the chance of someone not doing their job correctly because they fear the repercussions of messing with someone’s religious ‘rights’ and then that person getting all lawsuity on them. I worked in security for years and while this particular incident wasn’t of concern, it certainly was when we had to kick drunk people off the facility who happened to be natives.
So… what you’re saying is that cross-dressing is very popular in islamic culture? Huh. Never would have thought it.
No they’re just tired of your sad defense of this barbaric, subhuman practice.
It has no ties to religion so that word is now stricken from any further statements on this matter.
People can’t walk into a bank into New York wearing a Halloween mask, as is reasonable. Would you feel better if there was no “law” banning the burqa, but all public venues then decided (as is their right) no not serve/allow access to people who refuse to make their faces visible?
I can’t for the life of me figure you out. You’ve lived in that area for so long, you’ve provided many insights into that part of the world in your posts, and are well aware of things that are forbidden which we in the west wouldn’t give two seconds thought about. You obvious see nothing wrong with that part of the world imposing rules different that those you are used to.
Allow the west then to have it’s own rules. It is incorrect to say the west is a pure melting pot of all different cultural ideas. We pick and choose the things we accept from other cultures; incorporating things we approve and rejecting others.
In the 21st century, we reject hiding faces in public, especially when it is derived from a standpoint of treating women as property.
Here in the UK, we have the most cctv cameras per sq ml in the world. What is the point of spending all that money when it can be foiled by donning a burqa out of sight of the camera?
Dressing like you want to dress is barbaric? Why? Letting the police harass people for what they are wearing is not barbaric? Why?
How did you come to this conclusion? Are you simply making stuff up?
A number of hot-climate cultures have full-coverage clothing for both men and women (see Tuareg, etc.) Just because full-coverage seems hot to you–given the kinds of fabrics and cuts you’re used to–doesn’t mean it really is for people who know how to dress that way.
I have seen some complaints that burqas made of modern colorfast synthetic materials are hotter than cotton ones.
Again, guidelines - and we’re talking about law enforcement, not security.
In fact, covering one’s head is a necessity when it’s 120 degrees out. Obviously, it’s not going to be in Paris, but the hijab (and similar stuff like the dupatta often worn by Indian women) is based on a practical concerns.
Really? I mean, there would surely be no point to banning the wearing of particular garments in public if people weren’t out in public wearing them. It’s very hard to shut out the world when you’re standing out in the middle of it.
Is our capacity to consider people human beings so easily disregarded? Are our guarantees of human rights condescendingly dismissed when we deem someone isn’t making sufficient effort to our liking? That’s a dangerous path to go down. I submit to be treated like a human being you need one thing only; to be a human being. It’s not a matter of showing the proper obsequience.
Such as?
Thank you for rebutting arguments before I make them - it’s very easy, i’m sure, to counter the silly arguments, and tempting even when i’m not actually making them.
Bit of an ironic statement, there. Should we not, then, rely upon the simple betterment of not wearing such clothes, rather than force it down people’s throats against their will?
Yes? I mean, there’s open borders, there’s immigration, there are treaties and agreements with other countries to make immigration easier (including within the EU).
I don’t understand how we, precisely, are conforming to them. What changes have been forced upon us, other than the apparently onerous task of seeing people wearing very covering clothes? What demands have been made in changes to our conduct? What abuses of hospitality have been committed?
Sure. But for you, I would imagine, drinking alcohol, snogging women in public, and eating pork are not what you’d consider vital aspects of your religion or culture.
I really wouldn’t have said SA was a particularly excellent comparison to choose to compare with.
Yes, you can. Off you go, then.
Yes, i’m myself British. I’m not sure it’s most, but quite a few of them certainly do.
What does the actions of a private company in the UK have to do with the actions of the French government?
Most people in France, full stop, appear to be against the burqa. Most people in the UK, judging by the recent election, appear to be against the Labour party. So I suppose we’d better ban that, too.
Ah, but here you’ve been talking popular support, not objectivity. You need to show not that it is not a Muslim issue, but rather, that the French people, that French Muslims, do not consider it a Muslim issue.
Not for the entirety of Muslims, sure. Hey, the majority of Christians don’t take the Eucharist. That doesn’t make it not a religious requirement - it just means that, for some Christians, it is, and for some others, it isn’t.
Misleading implies deliberate deception. Do you believe that those French Muslims wearing burqas are solely doing so in order to decieve? That they honestly have no personal or religious reasons for doing so?
So? No religion has followers in lockstep to a single creed. Most Christians don’t live in monasteries, but that does not mean that there are no monks who consider their way of life to be religious in nature.
This is where the issue is. The burkha is garmet used to deny women an equal place in society. It is a tool to protect the man’s property. To deny its use is to promote human rights, not deny them. And while a person may not have the ability to wear the burka, the loss of that freedom is less than the one gained from those forced to wear it and now have the excuse not to.
But women forced to wear a burqa by men aren’t going to be made more free by banning the burqa. The response by such men isn’t going to be to back down, it’s going to be to ban them from leaving the house at all - or simply allowing them to leave the house uncovered, and punishing them later.
The issue is not the form that restriction of freedom takes, because that’s just a symptom. Ban burqas, and there will still be men trying to deny women an equal place in society - they’ll just go about it in different ways, plus they’ll now be annoyed by the imposition upon their means of control. I certainly sympathise with the ideal, and it’s an idea that in principle can sound grand, but it just won’t work in practice.
Then we punish the men in things called “court rooms” by removing them from the family home entirely, to share a cell with a big biker from Rotherham. Eventually, they’ll get the message. Or we could chop off the hand that inflicted the punishment upon the wife, daughter, whatever.