Re: Is the UK next?

[SaligoBay]

[quote user="Logan"]

When the government of a country starts telling it's people what to wear it's time to leave the country.

[/quote]

Where will you go, Logan?   Not much point in coming to France.  What with the headscarf ban already in place, not allowed to wear Nazi uniform, not allowed to wear anything that encourages the breaking of any law....... 

 

[chris pp]

I half agree with you, SB, I would be more inclined to challenge the law, wear the garment and go to court.

In France, as you well know, it's only outlawed in certain circumstances, but if they banned it altogether I may just consider wearing one (yes, I know I'm a bloke).

Chris

[Deimos]

[quote user="chris pp"]

Of course a teacher can be asked to adhere to a dress code, ...

[/quote]

I think the issue of the teacher and legal representative is a different one from dress codes. I understand that in the teacher and legal representative cases they were not being asked to comply with any "dress code" but rather they were unable to do their jobs given what the had chosen to wear. A (maybe bad) analogy might be if I chose to turn up for work as a life guard wearing lead boots. I would not be able to carry out my duties properly and my employer would be within their rights to ask me to not wear the boots when my duties required me to swim fast and rescue people.

[quote user="chris pp"]

If I should choose to cover my face in the same way that I choose to cover other parts of my body, do the public have a right to demand to see it?

[/quote]

I think it depends on your reasons for covering your face. If you were covering your face to avoid identification as you were committing a crime then I would say you have no right to cover your face. If you were covering your face for religious reasons then I would say you have every right to do so. However, the "religious reasons" one can get confusing as illustrated in the case of Aishah Azmi. If she cannot show her face to members of the opposite sex, how come she attended the interview for the job in front of a male interviewer without being full covered,no worries, yet then decides her right to fully cover is a matter for the European Court of Human Rights. Cynics might say that the "religious reasons" is the excuse and just "being victimised" is the reason (i.e. "stirring it up"). trouble is (cynicism apart) it must normally be impossible to tell which is "stirring-up" and which is "committed religious beliefs".

From watching TV news and reading the papers the UK Muslim communities seem to be becoming more and more isolated in their own. In the long term this cannot be good for anybody and I would hope that either a false impression is being given about this isolation (would not be the first time for TV/newspapers) or that things change and the groups become more integrated and accepting.

I am personally unsure about the justification the Dutch government are giving for the ban. The article quotes two different reasons from different people (one says "public order and pubic safety" and another person says "to promote integration and tolerance"). Also, I notice that it applies far more widely that to the Muslim burqa.

However, I am reading other people's thoughts as there some aspects of this I am decidedly unsure about.

Ian

[SaligoBay]

[quote user="Deimos"]

(one says "public order and pubic safety" [/quote]

Snarf! 

[Cassis]

Phnaar! 

I have to say the prospect of ChrisPP in a veil is intriguing.  Banning the veil is an interesting way of promoting tolerance.  Must look up the meaning of the word 'tolerance' in case I have misunderstood it all these years.

[Salty Sam]

[quote user="Tresco"]

When you say 'when in Rome...' do you mean that, for instance, if you were in Saudi Arabia, that you would think it was OK, and right and proper to stone a person, for certain crimes, or that you would accept that sort of sentence grudgingly (on behalf of another), because you were in Rome/Saudi Arabia?

Just trying to understand your Point of View.

[/quote]

Tresco, 'When in Rome .....' means to me adhering to the dress and cultural codes of that particular country. It certainly doesn't mean that if there was a public flogging, stoning or execution, I would go as a spectator or participate. If a country bans the use of alcohol, I accept that. If there is a dress code, I accept that also. I don't see what right I have to go against the cultural standards of any country I visit.

[Logan]

[quote user="SaligoBay"][quote user="Logan"]

When the government of a country starts telling it's people what to wear it's time to leave the country.

[/quote]

Where will you go, Logan?   Not much point in coming to France.  What with the headscarf ban already in place, not allowed to wear Nazi uniform, not allowed to wear anything that encourages the breaking of any law....... 

 

[/quote]

Europe in general is fast becoming intolerant and conservatively Christian. The post war years when we needed economic recovery have given way to an 'us and them attitude'. Politics is entrenched with lines we must not cross. The European Union appears to many as the political wing of the Catholic Church. Europe's civilisation is structurally hostile to ideas which challenge the status quo.

We can leave or fight, express our disagreement with stupidity, or seek a new Nirvana. At least at the moment we have that choice. I come from a generation that protested against the war in Vietnam. I had my head blooded by coppers who believed in the domino theory of the USA. The political left then were the bogey men. Now it's women in veils. Just another hate figure to use as a political tool to manipulate the masses for political power.

Any government dictating to people what to wear is serious nonsense

[SaligoBay]

[quote user="Cassis"]Phnaar! 

Banning the veil is an interesting way of promoting tolerance.  [/quote]

I suspect that for some people there is some fear involved, Cassis. 

People look at the societies/countries/cultures where the burqa is common, and don't see a lot of tolerance there.   So allowing it here is just the thin end of the wedge?  Maybe people aren't actually anti-Islam, but don't want to actively encourage its growth here?

And even with our much-promoted tolerance, we still have to draw a line somewhere, and that line moves as our society changes.  We no longer tolerate the Black and White Minstrels, for example, we got rid of gollies, we don't tolerate child abuse or the stoning to death of adulterous women.   We do now tolerate gay relationships and unmarried couples.

Who knows on which side of the line the burqa will end up in the UK?  

[Tresco]

Here I am, late back into the fray.

What do I find?

Logan, ChrisPP and JonD (in no deliberate order) have made my life very easy by making many of the points I thought I would make at some point, in response to someone. However, you all said what you said so well, in all your different ways. I commend you, chaps![:D]

There are lots of things I feel equivocal about, and will be wishy washy about in this 'new world' but not this proposed law in The Netherlands.

 

[Dick Smith]

Not all questions, he says portentiously, have answers.

This is a genuine dilemma, and may only go away when fundamental Islam has modernised itself into a form where the inner meanings of the teachings of the prophet take precedence over outward forms and show.

[Tresco]

But isn't this question - about banning a form of dress that contravenes no current laws relating to decency etc - all about the 'outward form and show' of a minority interpretation of the 'teachings of the prophet'?

 

[Dick Smith]

Yes. Many people of all religions do not feel it necessary to make an outward show of their inner beliefs, I think that comes from confidence and a degree of sophistication.

[Tresco]

Dick, I still don't get what you mean about confidence. Some women who choose to wear the burka say it's their choice. They sound pretty confident to me. They argue their point about all manner of subjects.

This is gleaned from reading interviews, not anyone I've met.

Do you man confident in a different way to the way I'm using it?

[Dick Smith]

I mean the confidence to BE their sprituality rather than display it.

[Tresco]

[quote user="Dick Smith"]I mean the confidence to BE their sprituality rather than display it.
[/quote]

OK, I see.

Frankly, I'm not interested in their spirituality as such. I don't believe in any god. I'm interested in conduct. In whether we (they) do good, or harm.

I accept others don't agree, but if the Muslim women I've had anything to do with are anything to go by, then then they 'be' OK by me, however they are dressed.

[Beryl]

I don't fully agree that it is their choice  when these choices are made in the context of their culture and background, all of which are traditionally male dominated. Thus they may think it is their free choice but is it really? 

There is nothing in the Koran ( word of Man not God just like the Bible) that dictates that they have to be covered to such an extent to be modest. I am not a feminist BTW. But if women have to cover themselves in such a manner to avoid men lusting after them, that is further evidence that the choice is not really theirs.

However, I think it would be better if the change came from within rather than being imposed on them however well intended. Had this ban come into force 10 years ago, it probably would have been welcomed by moderate Muslims but in the current political climate, it is being viewed differently.

 

 

[Deimos]

Some aspects to religion I find it difficult to appreciate (in fact quite a lot as I am not religious myself). For some religious people there does seem to be a strong need to display symbols of their beliefs to everybody else (I would expect the "everybody else" is generally not too interested). For example, the BA check-in person who was breaking BA dress code by wearing a crucifix on display. BA applied their rules even handedly and said she should not show the crucifix. She was allowed to wear it but it should be covered. She refused so was given a back office job where different dress code rules applied - so she went to an industrial tribunal (who found BA were right and against her). Why was showing this small crucifix to the world so important to her ?

However, in the case of full face covering I understood it was a decency thing rather than a religious "icon". Their interpretation is that men should not be able to see women ('cos them might start having evil thoughts, or for whatever reason). Presumably, if they think it is indecent for women to display any of themselves, they must believe that it applies to all women and not just themselves (i.e. it might be their interpretation but it must apply to all women). If it is a decency thing I wonder how it is handled in France as maybe people could argue its "decency" rather than a religious icon.

I re-read the article and noticed that Italy has already banned face coverings (using old laws), Some German states ban head scarf's in schools. Also the French religious icons in schools laws.

Also, people say they are happy with or not happy with burqas but I would suggest the same should apply to other veils where the bulk of the face is covered (e.g. niqabs).

Ian

[Hoddy]

"Also, people say they are happy with or not happy with burqas but I would suggest the same should apply to other veils where the bulk of the face is covered (e.g. niqabs)."

I do not think that they are the same thing at all. I have taught many Moslem girls who chose to wear a niqab and it posed no real problems except when new staff made the mistake of thinking that they were religous and therefore like nuns. In fact most of them weren't particularly religous at all and could occasionally be heard using language that wouldn't have been out of place on a building site. This demonstrated very nicely how we bring our own preconceptions to any situation.

Hoddy

[Deimos]

I would have thought that a lot of non-verbal communication would be lost with a niqba. Similarly speech muffled in a similar way. Not talking from experience here, just my thoughts.

Ian

[Logan]

In my view this issue is an example of how our personal freedoms are eroded by the constant drip, drip of protectionist governments. Governments democratically elected but with an agenda to preserve their own ideas of what is decent, moral and acceptable in society. In America it's called neo-conservativism, in Europe it's a form of nationalism and favoured by the far right. In any language it is intolerance of difference. Nationalism and intolerance of difference leads directly to conflicts and war. Today it's what we wear, tomorrow it might be how you speak, walk or look and so it continues. Where does it end? I draw your attention to the pogroms of the thirties. Yes, in 'civilised', Christian, Europe. Then Jews, (a religious minority) were the objects of hate campaigns stirred up by populists government. It begins slowly, banning what you can or cannot wear and moves on with the momentum of political support. We all should be aware of the consequences and the end results.

[Hoddy]

I think there's a small problem here of using the right words. My girls called what they wore a veil; it covered their hair and not their face. As I said like European nuns.

I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear.

Hoddy

[Bugsy]

My view, if you choose to live in another country, you should conform to their ways and customs. Western societies have always placed great store on 'face to face' communication. (Remember the Army ad where the soldier removes his sunglasses to talk to some hostiles.) Why should we change that ?

I laughed about the case of the woman teacher, who initially had my support, until it was revealed that she did not wear her veil for the interview, dispite the fact that men were present. That killed it for me as it has clearly become yet another political attack on the British way of life.

And lets keep it in perspective. I was in the UK last year on my bike and when filling up with fuel, I was refused it until I removed my helmet. Try walking into a bank with your face covered. I was thinking of sending my next passport photo in with me in my crash helmet, what are my chances...........................

Ducking down ready.................................

[SaligoBay]

[quote user="Logan"]

It begins slowly, banning what you can or cannot wear [/quote]

Of course people don't fear or hate a single woman in a burqa.  But they have the right to dislike what they think the burqa represents - and it CAN represent societies where Sharia Law is enforced, where women get stoned to death for adultery, and people get their hands cut off for petty theft.    The women in burqas aren't living in a vacuum, they're part of a surrounding culture that suggests/recommends/forces them to cover up like that, and that is not generally known for its tolerance.

I have seen the fear expressed that if you let that intolerant culture grow, it will eventually get to the stage where it won't tolerate us and our soppy notions of personal liberty.   You could argue till you were blue in the face that that day will never arrive, but in fact you can't be absolutely sure of that.   As you said yourself, it starts with very little, like Hitler did.

What you wear gives out a clear message about yourself.    Would you go out in a Nazi uniform?   Of course not!   Because it's loaded with meanings that you don't like, and that you would not want to be associated with.  It would be an extreme form of dress in our culture, and the burqa currently is too.  It's sending out a message of some sort, a message that many people don't like.

I'm just glad, yet again, that I'm not in charge of it all.   Too many contradictions to work out!   Should you be tolerant of something that you perceive as intolerant?   Does multiculturalism include those who don't want to be multicultural? 

Dunno!   

[kayc]

lets take away all aspects of the situation that are emmotive and get down to brass tacks basically if you are wearing facial copvering it hampers security cameras from seeing you.

there was this woman in a  she was put into a small confined room with just one small window a man walked in and pointed a bright light into her face and asked her to remove her facial covering , she didnt want to,  in fact if she did she always felt slightly threatened and anxious especially in front of men..  And oh yes it was always the men who asked !!  but she knew that in todays society that she would have to do this thing .

she did , in reality it didnt last long and after she put on her glasses she was able to go and apply for her driving lic. My point is that to live here I have to put up witrh certain things if I dont want to accept this way of life then I am free to go home I dont want to so I accept and get on with it

and finally before someone shoots me down it isnt just muslim woman that will be affected  lots of religions face cover some buddhists even cover up so that they do not accidently inhale one of the creators smallest creatures

[Chief]

Just like to thank this forum....This is the first sensible debate i have read on the subject......................