posted
What are your opinions of the 'Muslim Veil Controversy' (as it's being refered to on the news)? And what of the British Airways employee who was suspended for refusing to remove her beautiful crucifix necklace? Should we ban religious symbols and clothing or does that consitute a breach of freedoms?
To lighten the mood, here's an article from the always entertaining *NewsBiscuit.
Posts: 14015
| IP: Logged
posted
The BA crucifix thing is just daft. For a start, a cross on a necklace is no more an essential part of the Christian religion than having a "Jesus Saves" sticker on the back of your car. Turbans and veils and the like are integral to those religions.
Also, the BA rule is (as I understand it) "no dangly necklaces over the top of your uniform", as opposed to "no necklaces with symbols of Christianity on them". It's just standard smart uniform protocol. What if it was a CND symbol, or a really tacky lump of bling?
Hopefully this one will be thrown out of court instantly.
The veils issue is where things get really complicated. This country's general freedom and human rights and religious tolerance vibe suddenly starts majorly conflicting with its general discomfort with, you know, hiding women's faces and other generally extremist concepts.
Obviously there isn't a simple solution when it comes to proper integration. At some point the "tolerance" thing does get stretched and there really does have to be some compromise by the newcomers and it's nothing to do with us being xenophobic or anti-Muslim etc. Obviously the vast majority of them accept that and adapt their habits and clothing. (I understand that orthodox Jews have any number of ways of getting around religious requirements - like a woman has to cover her hair, so she wears a wig. Not sure how true that all is though.) I guess the line will have to be drawn somewhere, and the French standard of banning all religious symbols in dress code in schools is pretty much the way to go really, even though that is going to be uncomfortable for us woolly liberal types.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
posted
Indeed. I've found that the veil issue has brought out in me a "when in Rome" sentiment that other Muslim "behaviours" had left untouched. The woolly liberal line has been reached. Maybe it's the social conditioning that hiding your face seems deceitful and in some way disrespectful, and putting up a barrier to communication seems a rejection of others. I think the Frenchies have the right idea, though we'll have to do a lot of difficult back-tracking to reach that point.
posted
I'm not sure I disagree with Jack Straw much to be honest. I'm glad he stuck to his guns in the face of looking a bit like a facist. There is a certain extent to which one can express your own freedoms before you are actually just taking the piss and playing the religion card. I'm starting to think there might actually be a god you know? Like, he's just weeding out the thick people so that Allah will be sat on his throne of Misogyny and saying 'a rah hah hah - all you had to do was wear a hijab and you moved to england and got a job in public relations!' He pulls a big lever and his subject is banished to somewhere much worse for a Muslim. Like being a Wiccan.
There is always going to be someone who feel no more comfort that the tight chapping of skin and raking of lips that a gimp suit has to offer:
I'm going to stretch this analogy a bit more. It would be like living in a country where gimp suits were a mandatory uniform for all men and if a man was seen out of his gimp uniform, he would be beaten (but not sexually, no, the wrong kind) in the street by a group of angry women. So everyone who doesn't live in Gimpland is like 'let sleeping gimps lie' or something and nobody bothers flying out to Gimpland because you'd have to wear a fucking gimp suit and for someone like ralph, his beard might get caught in the zip. Not good.
Plus imagine when he is hunting. The thing would squeek wouldn't it?
So, a load of people from Gimpland decide to move to the United States of JustPants and start saying 'all your women are going to look at us men and want to have a big creampie, so we demand that we get to wear our protective gimpsuits to stop their rapey eyes' But no-one wants to offend the Gimpians so they just roll over and let them do whatever they want until someone finally a kid in MacDonalds trying to serve a bezipped mumbling person 'YOU CANNOT WEAR A FUCKING GIMPSUIT IN AN OFFICE/SCHOOL/SOCIAL SITUATION/MCDONALDS THIS IS A SHAM, A SHAM I SAY!!' and people are storming the streets and pelting sex toys and butt plugs at parliament and the police have to deploy fire engines filled with Liquid Silk to hose the Gimpians into submission and.....and....this is so much fun to write I cannot stop and I am very sorry the end.
posted
If I don't see a letter in the Metro comparing hijabs to gimp suits in the next few days, I shall be most disappointed.
Posts: 14015
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm with Dang on the crucifix one, it's just daft. It's not even like the woman's not allowed to wear the thing, she's just not allowed to wear it over her uniform. How unreasonable.
The whole Hijab issue is both extremely complicated and very obviously sensitive.
And there is great inconsistency in what is regarded as being appropriately modest clothing according to which Muslim, Country, or Scholar you happen to consult.
For example it's not it's not just the French that have anti-religious clothing laws, it's also against the law to wear Hijab in government buildings in Turkey and Tunisia. In pre-Ayatolla Iran women were not required to cover their hair and many wore Western clothing very happily.
It is my understanding that immigrant communties are generally more traditional and old fashioned than communities in their countries of origin, because of a desire to retain their ethnic/religious identity and not to lose traditions. Obviously this is going to cause greater problems when the religion of an immigrant population is so obviously bound up with other sensitive political issues, but I don't think demanding people not wear a veil or headscarf is necessarily the way to enter into a dialogue on the issue of Hijab in the UK.
Indeed it seems to me that insisting that women not wear an item of clothing is as constrictive as forcing them to wear it.
[ 16.10.2006, 08:09: Message edited by: Boy Racer ]
-------------------- Some people stand in the darkness, afraid to step into the light... Posts: 3770
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: but I don't think demanding people not wear a headscarf is necessarily the way to enter into a dialogue on the issue of Hijab in the UK.
I don't disagree with you, but that's not what has been asked has it? Just to be clear, the veil issue is about Jack Straw asking female muslims if they would not wear a niqab or burqa if they are considering visiting the surgery as it impeeds social relations. Every one of his female muslim constituents have so far agreed and complied with his request.
The niqab and burqa are not mandatory requirements but the argument is being blurred. It is a personal choice for a muslim to wear these veils and many muslims also agree with Jack Straw. I see no crime in asking someone to remove a veil and suggesting that they are unnecessary if that person wishes to engage in public relations. The veil is a personal preference that protects the wearers modesty, albeit an extreme version of modesty and alienates you from the benefits of social interaction, so why anyone would be offended that the suggestion that not wearing a veil would help increase communication seems a little overly sensitive to me. I mean. That's what it's designed to do for fucks sake.
[ 16.10.2006, 08:45: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
posted
You know when you beat up a woman and they start pleading, "Not the face! Not the face! Please, not the face!"? Well, with the veil you don't have to wory about that. That's why they're so popular.
posted
Look, I was trying to avoid saying it but everyone else is thinking it: the hijab is just fancy wrapping for muslim barbarians to keep their trophies in.
posted
I bet all the blokes sit around going, " You think your wife's beautiful? You should see mine... except, you can't, of course. But, if you could, fuck me she's gorgeous! (Apart from the shiner and the split lip)
posted
To clarify: the ban in France related to "all religious symbols" but the friction generated related to headscarves rather than veils (confusingly, I think the English reporting of the story translated 'headscarf' as 'veil' in a number of instances).
The question 'to what extent do we tolerate intolerance' or, worse, 'does intolerance of intolerance = tolerance' is a classic of stoner philosophising and one we're increasingly having to deal with as different types of human rights legislation, equal opps policy and social mores start to grate against one another.
So far as I can see, that the niqab is a symbol of misogynist oppression is a bit of a no-brainer. To refine NWoD's BDSM parallel, if a cultural tradition obliged all females to walk three steps behind their husband, wearing a ball-gag a number of powerful - and unacceptable - statements would be being made. We have a vast and (mainly) sensible corpus of legislation supporting the concept that men and women are equal in society and it seems utterly ridiculous that this accretion of precedent should be waived completely because of one or other religion.
quote:Boy Racer:And there is great inconsistency in what is regarded as being appropriately modest clothing according to which Muslim, Country, or Scholar you happen to consult.
In addition, I think people have to use this term "modest" with caution. I mean: modest in whose eyes? Modest in comparison to what?
Posts: 8657
| IP: Logged
Interestingly enough, amongst all the requests for the model to 'burn in hell' is this:
quote:hijabisforidiots: Great idea. As most women wearing hijab are basically sluts in disguise anyway. I;ve seen more covered girls sleeping around and doing perverted things than any normal girl in normal clothing.
Now when they say they've seen 'covered women' sleeping around presumably they just mean they know of it, or do you think they could see the guys arse bobbing up and down against the inside of the hijab.
A muslim girl retains her modesty
Get your tits out, get your tits out, get your tits out your niqab!
[ 16.10.2006, 09:09: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
posted
Thing is, the word 'veil' makes it sound like one of those sexy translucent things you might expect the foxy one in Carry On Up the Khyber to wear, when in fact it's a humanity-erasing black cowl with an eye slot.
Posts: 8657
| IP: Logged
posted
Have your say as always is a goldmine of intrigue, stupidity and very ocasionally an eye opening experience.
I like this quote though, right at the top there. You can imagine this poor sod looking at the rioting muslims on the front of the sun and scrunching his eyes into his palm with pained disbelief:
quote:People who know little about Islam should be encouraged to learn more about Islam. We (and I, a muslim) should allow and welcome people know know more about our religion so that people can really see what Islam is about and not what the terrorist portray it to be. This women is being unreasonable,,, I understand her reasons for wanting to wear one and fair enough but not n front of young vunerable children. Why do these people go over-the-top with the veil. UNREASONABLE!!
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: Have your say as always is a goldmine...
[/QUOTE]
quote: Added: Monday, 16 October, 2006, 12:02 GMT 13:02 UK
If I started a job as a classroom assistant and insisted that I was going to wear a balaclava to teach I doubt that I would be allowed to finish my first week. Agreed, everyone has their right to believe in what they want but it should not then intrude and interfere with other people. I say remove it or find a job where your not meeting people face to face.
Tom, Blackpool
Maybe the Micks could do this? I'm going to start wearing a ski-mask and a black beret to work. Again.
quote:Why has nobody pointed out that, judging by her TV interview, the woman is obviously not very bright? For that reason alone she shouldn't be teaching kids. The business with the veil is just an added extra.
posted
It is my understanding that the Qur'an states that Muslims of either sex should dress in a "modest" fashion and that this is the origin of various Muslim traditions relating to the term Hijab, which include more than simply clothing. As I have stated what is regarded as ‘modest’, and its status culturally and in law varies greatly throughout the Muslim world.
I vigorously disagree with women (or anyone) being required to wear items of religious dress by law, or by any form of force. It is very sad in this respect that the formerly moderate Islamic countries such as Afghanistan and Iran fell under more extremist Muslim control.
However there are no laws in this country requiring women to wear such items and if they do choose to wear them I think that choice should be respected, rather than derided or devalued.
[ 16.10.2006, 09:44: Message edited by: Boy Racer ]
-------------------- Some people stand in the darkness, afraid to step into the light... Posts: 3770
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: However there are no laws in this country requiring women to wear such items and if they do choose to wear them I think that choice should be respected, rather than derided or devalued.
Come on mate. There are no laws that I have to wear spandex tights, facepaint and huge size 50 shoes, but I'd get the piss ripped out of me on a regular basis walking up the street like that. Would you respect and value my choice to show up to to my teaching job squeeking my horn and organising a rally at the gates or would you be like 'well that's your choice, Chuckles, put up or shut up'?
quote:Originally posted by New Way Of Decay: Come on mate. There are no laws that I have to wear spandex tights, facepaint and huge size 50 shoes, but I'd get the piss ripped out of me on a regular basis walking up the street like that.
I dunno. Haven't you ever had the piss ripped out of you for what you were wearing and thought "Fuck those wankers, I'll wear what i like"? Or would you just think "Ehh, I guess if I dress like a metaller I deserve what I get. If I wanted to go unharrassed, I should dress like a normal person. Wear Fred Perry shirts. Short hair gelled to my forehead. It's my choice. I deserve to be mocked if I dress differently."
I pretty much agree with Boy Racer, and moreover I don't see a huge difference - morally - between a ruling stating that a woman definitely has to wear burqua, and one saying that she definitely isn't allowed to.
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: However there are no laws in this country requiring women to wear such items and if they do choose to wear them I think that choice should be respected, rather than derided or devalued.
The 'choice' thing is problematic, though. The concealment of women from the (presumably male) public gaze is symptomatic of a patriarchal and repressive religious culture.
Companies are taken to court for millions for allowing female employees to be subjected to onerous, bullying and unfair treatment - why ought (male) individuals to be allowed to get away with meting out the same to 'their' women simply because of the deity they worship?
Posts: 8657
| IP: Logged
posted
Did I get the piss ripped out of me? My own family use to mock me before I left the house man, but I had to use the clown analogy because lets face it, squeeky noses and 50 clowns getting out of a single mini outside a school, being up in arms, is well.....amusing to me. I'm confused, I thought I was agreeing with boy racer and yet also suggesting that within this freedom of choice, then we suffer the rules of social ridicule too. Whether it be me with long hair (Jesus) my mate Mark with his tassled leather jacket (The Ultimate Warrior) or Salim and his turban (Turbinator, T-1000, Smelly Bum etc)
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: moreover I don't see a huge difference - morally - between a ruling stating that a woman definitely has to wear burqua, and one saying that she definitely isn't allowed to.
There is a difference though isn't there? One is mandatory, the other one is an alternative choice. One is unconditional. We do not refuse entry to people who choose to wear a fully enclosed Hijab, but someone has highlighted that it reduces social interactivity. I think even suggesting that Jack Straw is touching a 'sensitive issue' is buying into this Daily Mail idea that muslims are all crazed extremists.
Actually, yeah, just further up the constituents agreed with Straw and he also offered for there to be another lady present. If anything, I think he's doing a pretty good job at being sensitive if there is a need to be (carried on below)
[ 16.10.2006, 10:42: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: I pretty much agree with Boy Racer, and moreover I don't see a huge difference - morally - between a ruling stating that a woman definitely has to wear burqua, and one saying that she definitely isn't allowed to.
One would be founded on the idea that male-defined concepts of "honour" are fundamental to a woman's value as a human and that women who violate this norm are despicable sluts?
quote:Originally posted by ben: Companies are taken to court for millions for allowing female employees to be subjected to onerous, bullying and unfair treatment - why ought (male) individuals to be allowed to get away with meting out the same to 'their' women simply because of the deity they worship?
They don't get away with it any more than the companies do. If a female employee feels as though her company has bullied her, she can (theoretically, I guess, because the system does fail people occasionally) take them to court with the backing of the law. If a woman feels as though her husband is abusing her she can (again, theoretically) count on the support of the law.
Of course, what the law doesn't do is tell her what she can and can't choose to wear. I can understand the argument that a muslim woman might not have made a completely 'free choice' insofar as her religion and her religious culture may have heavily influenced her decision, but really how far are you going to take that? Forbid people from wearing Converse trainers because they've been bullied into it by an ongoing global advertising campaign and relentless product placement? Stop people from buying iPods because they've been wrongly convinced that such an item will make them cool and happy?
A while back there was a debate about women taking their husband's names. It can be convincingly argued that that's a symbol of treating women as a man's possession, and a leftover tradition from a similarly repressive culture, but does that mean women who still want to take their husband's names shouldn't even have the choice? I'd say 'obviously not'. Even in a more extreme situation like this, if people are choosing to partake in a practice that you see as repressing them... you've just got to let them do that. Most of the population continues cheerfully partake in a culture that demeans them, wastes their potential and keeps them shackled to idiot ideas, every time they slump in front of the TV with a beer. I dunno. It's just not for you to tell people what to think.
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
posted
I think the naturist analogy is quite good. If you're in a nudist colony in the South of France and pretty much everyone else around you is naked because that's what you all want to do then no one has a problem with it.
At the same time, no one really sees it as persecution or restriction of personal freedom to expect the naturist to put some clothes on when they go back to teaching, or working in the Post Office or whatever.
A woman covering her face with just her eyes peering out through a letterbox is, ironically perhaps, just as disconcerting as someone being naked. It's hard to know where to look. Maybe the idea is that you don't look, but we're not trained in such etiquette in this country so we end up uncomfortable with it. Not exactly a big deal when you just pass a woman in the street, but must be quite difficult if she's teaching you maths every day, or if she was serving you in a bank or something.
I think there does come a point where local standards have to be respected, at least to some extent. I mean, did you see some of the day-to-day outfits worn by some of those residents in that Tribe TV series? Would they come here and walk around Ikea while painted red with mud and not wearing bras? Yet, that's completely and totally normal in Northern Ethiopia or wherever.
It's not a criticism of their standards of dress or their religious traditions to expect them to adapt a little when they are in public places in the UK. Mind you, do British tourists cover up a bit when they wander round in Tunisia or Morocco etc? I dunno.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by ben: The 'choice' thing is problematic, though. The concealment of women from the (presumably male) public gaze is symptomatic of a patriarchal and repressive religious culture.
Companies are taken to court for millions for allowing female employees to be subjected to onerous, bullying and unfair treatment - why ought (male) individuals to be allowed to get away with meting out the same to 'their' women simply because of the deity they worship?
The issue of choice is undoubtedly problematic.
Whilst I believe that extreme Muslim traditions of female dress are indictative of attitudes to women and sexuality that I find undesirable, that doesn't mean that everyone has to.
I'm not condoning the subjugation or abuse of Muslim (or any) women, but simply stating that in the West, where they are supposedly free to dress as they choose, that their right to dress as they choose - provided it is their choice - should be respected.
-------------------- Some people stand in the darkness, afraid to step into the light... Posts: 3770
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by ben: One would be founded on the idea that male-defined concepts of "honour" are fundamental to a woman's value as a human and that women who violate this norm are despicable sluts?
Mmm. Is this really all that different from all the rest of the items of clothing that stem from male-defined concepts of how a woman should look, and the many, many brands that attempt to manipulate the public into believeing that they would somehow be better if they had Gucci shoes, Versace jacket etc etc?
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic