Should France ban the veil?

[Yitzi_K]

Are you kidding me? Noah's Ark was an act of god that never even happened. Science has already disproven that there could have been a flood lasting 40 days...

Without wishing to get wildly off topic, I'd be interested in seeing this evidence.

[ninwa]

You mean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology
Which in the first few paragraphs says:

Flood geology is associated with Young Earth creationists, who regard the biblical flood narrative in Genesis 6-9 as a historically accurate record. The evidence they have presented has been evaluated, refuted and unequivocally dismissed by the scientific community, which considers the subject to be pseudoscience. Flood geology contradicts scientific consensus in disciplines such as geology, physics, chemistry, molecular genetics, evolutionary biology, archaeology, and paleontology.

[QuantumJG]

Yep, and so the choice really isn't "burqa or no burqa"

it really becomes...

"burqa... or my entire family and community?"

what a choice, what a free will choice.

You're completely missing the point here. Just imagine for a moment that you believe in G-d, an all supreme being, who punishes those who disobey Him, and rewards those who listen to Him.

In such a scenario, you would do what He wants, whether you like it or not. It's a question of belief; if you believe, you do.

For Muslim women, it's not a choice of burqa or not, it's a choice of G-d or not, because clearly, one cannot have one and not the other. To say that Muslim women should keep their religion but not obey their G-d is utterly oxymoronic.

Just say god!

Anyway where is the proof that god is a man.

God didn't create man in 'his' (or hers or it's) image, man created god in his image. If we were created in the image of a god, then god should have brainstormed a bit more before releasing a being capable of such atrocities.

[QuantumJG]

I read that article on Belgium banning the veil.

Also about it being there to curb sexual relations between men and women, get real. If a man is blaming a women being why he can't keep it in his pants we have a special place for them 'prison'.

[Yitzi_K]

Yep, and so the choice really isn't "burqa or no burqa"

it really becomes...

"burqa... or my entire family and community?"

what a choice, what a free will choice.

You're completely missing the point here. Just imagine for a moment that you believe in G-d, an all supreme being, who punishes those who disobey Him, and rewards those who listen to Him.

In such a scenario, you would do what He wants, whether you like it or not. It's a question of belief; if you believe, you do.

For Muslim women, it's not a choice of burqa or not, it's a choice of G-d or not, because clearly, one cannot have one and not the other. To say that Muslim women should keep their religion but not obey their G-d is utterly oxymoronic.

Just say god!

Anyway where is the proof that god is a man.

God didn't create man in 'his' (or hers or it's) image, man created god in his image. If we were created in the image of a god, then god should have brainstormed a bit more before releasing a being capable of such atrocities.

Don't tell me what to write. I can spell G-d how I choose. I have my reasons for doing so.

G-d is not a man, nor a woman. That being the case, it makes no difference whether I refer to Him or Her, both are somewhat inaccurate pronouns. I only choose Him because that is commonly used as the generic pronoun for G-d.

And I don't know what your interpretation of the verse 'let us make man in our image' is, but clearly it differs from mine.

[ninwa]

A Muslim woman in northern Italy has been given a €500 (£430) on-the-spot fine under anti-terrorism laws for wearing a face-covering burqa in public

[Noblesse]

For Australia's sake, we need to ban the burqua

[Abdi]

If we accept those citizens who purposely dress up to resemble the opposite gender, tattoo their entire faces, have dozens of piercings, dye their hair fluoro pink and blue, and those who strut practically nude down the street, then why is it that a woman is being banned from freely expressing herself by way of veiling and saying, "Everything about me BESIDES my beauty should be important to society"? Unfortunately, politicians and race-panderers in the West sometimes get so caught up in forcing upon us the freedom to express ourselves, they overlook the fact that we deserve the right not only to express ourselves but also to decide how we express ourselves.

Therefore, those Muslim women who observe the Niqab do so because either they feel it is obligatory upon them, or they believe it is not obligatory upon them but they wish to exercise precaution and feel more comfortable covering their faces in public rather than exposing them. It may be true that some Niqabis may have adopted this practice through their culture, but it is indeed a religious practice. Governments in the West (and elsewhere) have a constitutional obligation to respect the religious beliefs and practices of their people, not trample upon them based on unfounded declarations.

For almost three decades now, we've seen and heard a plethora of bizarre justifications from both Muslim and non-Muslim authorities for banning Muslim women from their right to dress with the Hijab and Niqab, ranging from it being a hindrance to education, restriction on women's rights, a grave threat to society, to "destabilizing" national culture and causing identification difficulties. Everyone seems to be an expert on the topic, of course. Everyone, that is, except for Muslim women!

[Abdi]

If anyone can explain to us how a cross pendant on a Christian's neck can in any way be equated to a woman who observes a level of protection so great that she even covers her face, we are all ears. Surely no human rights are violated if a person was asked to remove an item of religious jewelery, but to restrict the way a person can dress, especially when it is a woman demanding protection in a society and culture where exploitation of the female gender is the norm? This is not about eliminating religious symbolism in public; this seems to be more about eliminating a group of Muslim women from society all together. (-_-)

[Abdi]

Apparently a piece of clothing has the ability to deteriorate national culture, but it's part of our national cultures to go against our written and explicit constitutions, bills of rights, and numerous international treaties which explicitly outline the freedom of religious practice?

In conclusion, it has been a long and tiresome battle between politicians and governments of both Muslim and non-Muslim countries who want to ban the Islamic modest dress for a list of nonsensical reasons and Muslim women who just want to be able to freely exercise their Divine obligation and the right to protect their beauty. So, will banning the Niqab force dedicated and faithful Muslim women to come into public without their faces being covered? On the contrary, if these women are stripped of their right which they so strongly believe in, they are simply going to stop leaving the protection of their homes all together. Perhaps the most potent factor for the success of such bans in the 21st century is the downfall of the international Islamic community, which has failed miserably to stand united on the platform of a Muslim woman's right to observe the Hijab ( headscarfe) and Burqa (Niqab) and reject exploitation.

By banning the Burqa, Eastern and Western politicians will be forcing these women inside their houses, thus depriving them of their right to be recognized as intelligent and liberated human beings, and as informed and empowered citizens who challenge the status quo of female exploitation. But for patriarchal dictators in the Middle East as well as misogynistic Western politicians who are swept into office by media conglomerates that have reduced women to nothing more than inarticulate sex symbols, perhaps nothing could be more relieving.

What ever happend to section 116 of the Australian constitution?

[enwiabe]

Apparently a piece of clothing has the ability to deteriorate national culture, but it's part of our national cultures to go against our written and explicit constitutions, bills of rights, and numerous international treaties which explicitly outline the freedom of religious practice?

In conclusion, it has been a long and tiresome battle between politicians and governments of both Muslim and non-Muslim countries who want to ban the Islamic modest dress for a list of nonsensical reasons and Muslim women who just want to be able to freely exercise their Divine obligation and the right to protect their beauty. So, will banning the Niqab force dedicated and faithful Muslim women to come into public without their faces being covered? On the contrary, if these women are stripped of their right which they so strongly believe in, they are simply going to stop leaving the protection of their homes all together. Perhaps the most potent factor for the success of such bans in the 21st century is the downfall of the international Islamic community, which has failed miserably to stand united on the platform of a Muslim woman's right to observe the Hijab ( headscarfe) and Burqa (Niqab) and reject exploitation.

By banning the Burqa, Eastern and Western politicians will be forcing these women inside their houses, thus depriving them of their right to be recognized as intelligent and liberated human beings, and as informed and empowered citizens who challenge the status quo of female exploitation. But for patriarchal dictators in the Middle East as well as misogynistic Western politicians who are swept into office by media conglomerates that have reduced women to nothing more than inarticulate sex symbols, perhaps nothing could be more relieving.

What ever happend to section 116 of the Australian constitution?

You say all of this without any thought given to the oppression of women's rights because of it. This is a pretty sly post, dressing it up as protecting women's rights. The subjugation of women will no longer stand in progressive democracies. You cite modern-day exploitation in society as reasons for wearing the veil, but the burqa/hijab are archaic relics of a patriarchy.

I laugh at "liberated". How is covering up women as if they are prized possessions liberating in any way? That's what the quran mandates. That women must be covered up to prevent men from "sin". E.g. Men can't control themselves, so the women will pay for it with their freedom! Nice

[ninwa]

Therefore, those Muslim women who observe the Niqab do so because either they feel it is obligatory upon them,

And we must ask - why? Do they feel it is "obligatory" because otherwise they will be disowned or worse by their families if they don't? What about those women?

It may be true that some Niqabis may have adopted this practice through their culture, but it is indeed a religious practice.

If it is a religious practice, then why do they need to proclaim that it is their "culture"?

Governments in the West (and elsewhere) have a constitutional obligation to respect the religious beliefs and practices of their people, not trample upon them based on unfounded declarations.

Banning the burqa would not be constitutionally defined as "trampling" upon these rights. (See below)

If anyone can explain to us how a cross pendant on a Christian's neck can in any way be equated to a woman who observes a level of protection so great that she even covers her face, we are all ears. Surely no human rights are violated if a person was asked to remove an item of religious jewelery, but to restrict the way a person can dress, especially when it is a woman demanding protection in a society and culture where exploitation of the female gender is the norm? This is not about eliminating religious symbolism in public; this seems to be more about eliminating a group of Muslim women from society all together. (-_-)

Confusing argument. Is it a cultural practice, religious practice, or is it actually about "protection"? Protection from what?

If it is indeed a religious practice, you cannot demand religious equality for Muslims and at the same time declare one sign of observance as somehow inferior to another. Who are you to say that wearing a cross isn't as important to a Christian as wearing the burqa is to a Muslim?

Apparently a piece of clothing has the ability to deteriorate national culture, but it's part of our national cultures to go against our written and explicit constitutions, bills of rights, and numerous international treaties which explicitly outline the freedom of religious practice?

1) We do not have a Bill of Rights.
2) Constitutions? Are you referring to both the Cth and state constitutions? If so, the Cth has power to override laws which the states make (s.109). State constitutions aren't really all that important here, especially as you say it is a national issue.

In conclusion, it has been a long and tiresome battle between politicians and governments of both Muslim and non-Muslim countries who want to ban the Islamic modest dress for a list of nonsensical reasons and Muslim women who just want to be able to freely exercise their Divine obligation and the right to protect their beauty. So, will banning the Niqab force dedicated and faithful Muslim women to come into public without their faces being covered?

Are you saying that Muslims who do not cover their faces are not "dedicated and faithful"?

Perhaps the most potent factor for the success of such bans in the 21st century is the downfall of the international Islamic community, which has failed miserably to stand united on the platform of a Muslim woman's right to observe the Hijab ( headscarfe) and Burqa (Niqab) and reject exploitation.

Interesting that you mention exploitation. What is the relation of exploitation to wearing such items of clothing?

By banning the Burqa, Eastern and Western politicians will be forcing these women inside their houses, thus depriving them of their right to be recognized as intelligent and liberated human beings, and as informed and empowered citizens who challenge the status quo of female exploitation.

Please explain how covering up everything that makes them individuals makes them "liberated".

But for patriarchal dictators in the Middle East as well as misogynistic Western politicians who are swept into office by media conglomerates that have reduced women to nothing more than inarticulate sex symbols, perhaps nothing could be more relieving.

What a generalisation that is. Examples?
I hardly think our dear Ms Gillard is misogynistic.

What ever happend to section 116 of the Australian constitution?

I assume you are referring to s.116(c).
That section is rather more complex than that, and in practice has a very, very narrow application. Judging from precedent, the High Court’s view would be that a law banning the burqa would not be constitutionally invalid under that section. I would be happy to elaborate if you wish, or if you want to find out more for yourself:
Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses Incorporated v Commonwealth ("Jehovah's Witnesses case") [1943] HCA 12
Kruger v Commonwealth ("Stolen Generations case") [1997] HCA 27

[Abdi]

Please elaborate!

[Abdi]

You say all of this without any thought given to the oppression of women's rights because of it. This is a pretty sly post, dressing it up as protecting women's rights. The subjugation of women will no longer stand in progressive democracies. You cite modern-day exploitation in society as reasons for wearing the veil, but the burqa/hijab are archaic relics of a patriarchy.

I laugh at "liberated". How is covering up women as if they are prized possessions liberating in any way? That's what the quran mandates. That women must be covered up to prevent men from "sin". E.g. Men can't control themselves, so the women will pay for it with their freedom! Nice

[/quote]

first of, allow me to inform you women are prized possesions according to our religion as it is liberating in way where harm and the sexual pleasures of men are lured away for they are covered! secondly The quran mandates that women cover themselves up in order not to sin themselves not the men sining as they are the ones showing off their bodies and what not. Also answer me this, why is it that we cover a lollipop with a wrapper? to abstain from filth, dirt and flies right? cause really if we sold unwrapped lollipops then the lollipop itself has no control of protecting itself from this dirt and so just accumulates. this is like the women, we understand women that don't wear the burqa don't intentionally do so to arouse men! rather it is just living right? well regardless if that was her intention men will still stare and look no matter what. therefore the woman has no control and falls prey to fulfilling the sexual desires of men. if not she is rapped and so on.

I agree what you said about men sinning however note that they are partially involved! the quran also mandates for men to lower their gaze upon laying their eyes on a non-covered women other than their spouse and wives.If they presist gazing upon women they are told to fast 3 days, for fasting rids of the energy as you are tired, hungry and what not, therefore having no energy to even think of women, rather thirst and food! please inform me to elaborate if you found things unclear!

http://www.pakistan.web.pk/threads/26860-A-Very-Good-Ad-About-Hejab

all this picture is showing is that hijab protects US from any unwanted attention or unwanted evil..
sorry but i dont see at all how its disrespectful to women.. firstly hijab applies both to women AND MEN..
how about you answer this question.. then perhaps ull understand wat this image means: why dont they sell lollipops without wrappers? ... answer is simple, because theres things out there that are attracted to the sweetness of a lollipop.. similarly women AND MEN should have hijab because theres things(people) out there that are attracted to the beauty..
you can argue that people "are not all sinful or sluts or asking for the recognition of men"
but hey the lollipop isnt asking for attention either.. but if u leave it uncovered we all know flies will come.. same with hijab..

[Cthulhu]

I think burqa's are sexy.