Oxymoronic French law on veils raises its head again...

[Eclassy]

supersingle said:

I'm not sure what this woman was doing at the opera considering that music is considered haram under Islam and is banned in Saudi Arabia.

Music itself is not haram. Its the music put together with several musical instruments.

The opera is more like a nasheed.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Society has loads of rules on what people can and can't wear, from motorcyclists wearing crash helmets to public nudity. To stop others being offended or to protect stupid people from themselves. Or in the case of the veil, both. It's not oxymoronic at all.

I'll give you an example of an oxymoron.....religious education!

[wolves_wanderer]

I wonder if you would be so keen on clothing being banned to suit a religious group

[JagLover]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

No woman in their right mind would wear a full face veil. Those who do are either being forced to, or have had their brain addled by years of exposure to a patriarchal religion.

Tunisia is an Islamic country, and they banned the veil for years. Because they knew it was nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with the subjugation of women.

Also, we have many laws on public dress in the UK. I couldn't walk around with the c word in large letters on my t shirt, or with my cock out. Because it's offensive to the majority of people. So is the veil. Women died in the UK fighting for equality, and many men support that equality. It's offensive to the UK population to see that mocked by idiots wearing the veil.

Some of the most vociferous opponents of the veil are muslim, who don't wish to see their religion portrayed in such a negative way by a stupid ill educated minority.

France are absolutely right to ban it in public, and it's high time we followed suit.

Well said

[gruffalo]

JagLover said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

No woman in their right mind would wear a full face veil. Those who do are either being forced to, or have had their brain addled by years of exposure to a patriarchal religion.

Tunisia is an Islamic country, and they banned the veil for years. Because they knew it was nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with the subjugation of women.

Also, we have many laws on public dress in the UK. I couldn't walk around with the c word in large letters on my t shirt, or with my cock out. Because it's offensive to the majority of people. So is the veil. Women died in the UK fighting for equality, and many men support that equality. It's offensive to the UK population to see that mocked by idiots wearing the veil.

Some of the most vociferous opponents of the veil are muslim, who don't wish to see their religion portrayed in such a negative way by a stupid ill educated minority.

France are absolutely right to ban it in public, and it's high time we followed suit.

Well said

Yep, hit the nail on the head there.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

wolves_wanderer said:

I wonder if you would be so keen on clothing being banned to suit a religious group

We have that now. How far would I get before being arrested is I wore a T shirt proclaim "Jesus / Allah was a ****.

I would never be allowed to wear that, because it's offensive to others. So to answer your question, I have no problem with t shirts like that being banned.

[brenflys777]

The wearing of these face covering veils is just a social custom. It was allowed to develop in countries where women do not have the same social freedoms that we enjoy in the UK or France. If women aren't allowed to work, drive, walk about with a chaperone then it limits the impact on society. The society is already pants.

The French reaction of dealing with a backward social custom which is incompatible with the social freedoms they already have is preferable to me than the likely knee jerk reaction without debate that we'll have when social enemy number one + friends disguised along with weapons under a burka commits an atrocity (in an area where someone in a balaclava or motorbike helmet would have been stopped) and then escapes with their identity unknown.

[Countdown]

Is anybody here married to, or in a relationship with, a woman who will agree to wear what they insist she wears, even though she doesn't want to wear it?

Speaking personally, telling my wife what to do gets me nowhere. "Asking" her to do something (after explaining the why's and the wherefores) usually works.

Going back to the OP - meh, in a word. France - their gaff their rules.

Pistonheads is a funny old world. We rail against the Nanny State for forcing us to drive in accordance with speed limits but don't see any issue with the Nanny State deciding what people can and can't wear.

[Kermit power]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Society has loads of rules on what people can and can't wear, from motorcyclists wearing crash helmets to public nudity. To stop others being offended or to protect stupid people from themselves. Or in the case of the veil, both. It's not oxymoronic at all.

I'll give you an example of an oxymoron.....religious education!

Where is the law banning people from wearing crash helmets in public?

It's fair enough to ban people from wearing them in banks or other similar places where not being able to see people's faces could be a security risk, and I'd see no contradiction with banning people full face coverings of any sort in those circumstances, but that's not the same thing as banning them full stop.

In fact, if you're going to follow this line of logic through to its natural conclusion, then you'd have to ban motorcyclists from wearing full face helmets on motorbikes, surely? After all, we wouldn't want to offend people by covering our faces in public, would we?

[wolves_wanderer]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

wolves_wanderer said:

I wonder if you would be so keen on clothing being banned to suit a religious group

We have that now. How far would I get before being arrested is I wore a T shirt proclaim "Jesus / Allah was a ****.

I would never be allowed to wear that, because it's offensive to others. So to answer your question, I have no problem with t shirts like that being banned.

That isn't the item of clothing being banned though is it? What you are saying is analogous to me saying posters are banned because I would be in trouble for carrying one with an offensive message on it.

[RobGT81]

Kermit power said:

In fact, if you're going to follow this line of logic through to its natural conclusion, then you'd have to ban motorcyclists from wearing full face helmets on motorbikes, surely? After all, we wouldn't want to offend people by covering our faces in public, would we?

Once off their bike, bikers don't get far with their helmets on these days. A lot of petrol stations won't let you fill up with your lid on.

[brenflys777]

Countdown said:

Is anybody here married to, or in a relationship with, a woman who will agree to wear what they insist she wears, even though she doesn't want to wear it?

Speaking personally, telling my wife what to do gets me nowhere. "Asking" her to do something (after explaining the why's and the wherefores) usually works.

I've seen families in the UK where they have beaten their own children or relatives because they have brought some shame on them, dating the wrong man, refusing to go back to another country to marry someone and countless other offensive things.

This problem of bullying families is not exclusive to any particular religion but some of the nastiest cases of teenage girls making a complaint and then having it withdrawn were from Muslim families where the full face mask was being worn. It may seem incomprehensible to you but when you have people who will threaten to have their own children beaten or murdered to conform to backward customs from a different country, imagining that significant numbers of women conform out of fear (either physical or social) is not hard to imagine.

Countdown said:

Pistonheads is a funny old world. We rail against the Nanny State for forcing us to drive in accordance with speed limits but don't see any issue with the Nanny State deciding what people can and can't wear.

It doesn't seem odd at all to dislike social limits you disagree with but encourage others. If I like to drive briskly and I drove down a busy motorway at 90mph some would consider it safe in the right conditions, others would think it socially unacceptable. I'm not likely to get banned for it. Do the same thing at 150mph, very few would think it socially acceptable. I would get banned. Society has to place some limitations on my freedoms to maintain the majority of our social freedoms for the majority of people. There are already limits on what people do or do not wear. The society has to continually adjust the rules to reflect the needs of the majority balanced against the freedoms of individuals.

Edited by brenflys777 on Wednesday 22 October 09:50

[Kermit power]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

wolves_wanderer said:

I wonder if you would be so keen on clothing being banned to suit a religious group

We have that now. How far would I get before being arrested is I wore a T shirt proclaim "Jesus / Allah was a ****.

I would never be allowed to wear that, because it's offensive to others. So to answer your question, I have no problem with t shirts like that being banned.

And what if "others" decided that T shirts in general were offensive? Would you be happy for T shirts to be banned?

[jesta1865]

Kermit power said:

jesta1865 said:

Kermit power said:

Gargamel said:

Please suggest an alternative

My son would claim that I force him to eat Broccoli. That doesn't mean that broccoli should be banned, as some people actually choose to eat it of their own free will.

yes it should be, along with celery.

in all seriousness, why are the French people not allowed to decide what is acceptable in their country? if they decide their lives are safer and more content if people can't wear headgear or you have to wear gloves on a Thursday that's up to them.

Many of the people in question are "the French people". They were born and bred there. To the best of my knowledge, there wasn't a universal referendum either, so it's more a case of some French people having decided to impose their views on other French people.

jesta1865 said:

the French didn't found their state on religious principles neither did we or the US etc, so why should religion expect to not be questioned or legislated over / against.

If we didn't found our state on religious principles, then why do we let people sit in the House of Lords as part of the policy making apparatus simply because they wear silly pointy hats?

it annoyed me last night that someone who lives in the catchment of a particular secondary school in Southend had to have an interview, along his mum, with a priest to get in, that's wrong, his place (in a state school) should not be controlled by religion.

I totally agree that no state school should be controlled by religion, but that's not the same thing as saying religious schools shouldn't be allowed.

from what i understand this ban was just existing legislation being amended and enforced, happy to be corrected, but that's what I have been lead to believe.

the house of lords has religious leaders in it, but they are not a majority and law in this country is not based on what the church wants or wanted, it's based on all men being equal, ironically so is the american constitution hence the arguments over there about church and state.

personally i would like to see a lot of the legislation that protects religion swept away and they play on a level playing field with us atheists. people moan about big business not paying tax, the church is minted and pays no tax, rarely coughs up to repair it's own buildings either, tight wads.

as for banning the veil, ban any face covering where it's not required, bike helmets ok when on a bike, not off it. balaclavas ok walking in the mountains, not in lakeside, veils ok in your home or religious centre, not in a public place.

lakeside and bluewater have banned hoodies as it helps people avoid being identified, why should you be allowed to walk round covered from head to foot in a sheet because you believe in fairy tales? all or nothing to me, religion should not get these protections any more.

[Countdown]

brenflys777 said:

I've seen families in the UK where they have beaten their own children or relatives because they have brought some shame on them, dating the wrong man, refusing to go back to another country to marry someone and countless other offensive things. This problem of bullying families is not exclusive to any particular religion but some of the nastiest cases of teenage girls making a complaint and then having it withdrawn were from Muslim families where the full face mask was being worn, it may seem incomprehensible to you but when you have people who will threaten to have their own children beaten or murdered to conform to backward customs from a different country imagining that significant numbers of women conform out of fear either physical or social is not hard to imagine.

The only thing that will fix the behaviour you describe is education. "Banning" an item of dress will not change peoples attitudes one iota. In fact it could quite possibly be counter-productive; those women who are subject to male domination will simply be stopped from going outside. Those who choose to wear it will consider this as a persecution of their faith.

Countdown said:

Pistonheads is a funny old world. We rail against the Nanny State for forcing us to drive in accordance with speed limits but don't see any issue with the Nanny State deciding what people can and can't wear.

brenflys777 said:

It doesn't seem odd at all to dislike social limits you disagree with but encourage others. If I like to drive briskly and I drove down a busy motorway at 90mph some would consider it safe in the right conditions, others would think it socially unacceptable. I'm not likely to get banned for it. Do the same thing at 150mph, very few would think it socially acceptable. I would get banned. Society has to place some limitations on my freedoms to maintain the majority of our social freedoms for the majority of people. There are already limits on what people do or do not wear. The society has to continually adjust the rules to reflect the needs of the majority balanced against the freedoms of individuals.

Driving at high speed creates the risk of injuring or killing somebody. Wearing a piece of clothing doesn't.

[rollondeath]

Steady

brenflys777 said:

The French reaction of dealing with a backward social custom which is incompatible with the social freedoms they already have is preferable to me than the likely knee jerk reaction without debate that we'll have when social enemy number one + friends disguised along with weapons under a burka commits an atrocity (in an area where someone in a balaclava or motorbike helmet would have been stopped) and then escapes with their identity unknown.

It's already happened. One of the 7/7 suspect's escaped the country wearing a burka.

[tangerine_sedge]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

No woman in their right mind would wear a full face veil. Those who do are either being forced to, or have had their brain addled by years of exposure to a patriarchal religion.

Or, as many Muslim women openly state, it gives them the freedom to go about their everyday lives without feeling like they are being judged on their looks and apperance. It might be hard to believe, but many women see it as a liberating experience. Loads of statements to that effect online.

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Tunisia is an Islamic country, and they banned the veil for years. Because they knew it was nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with the subjugation of women.

to quote wiki : "Citation required"...

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Also, we have many laws on public dress in the UK. I couldn't walk around with the c word in large letters on my t shirt, or with my cock out. Because it's offensive to the majority of people. So is the veil. Women died in the UK fighting for equality, and many men support that equality. It's offensive to the UK population to see that mocked by idiots wearing the veil.

Is the veil really 'offensive'? Do you feel moral outrage whenever you see one? I don't believe it's offensive to the majority of people, please show me the stats that back your assertion up.

Female equality is not forcing all women to dress in the same way or to follow the same social conventions. Many of these women are choosing to cover themselves in a Western world which is rapidly sexualising the dress of many women. See a Friday night in your local town for details.

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Some of the most vociferous opponents of the veil are muslim, who don't wish to see their religion portrayed in such a negative way by a stupid ill educated minority.

Many people object to it for various reasons, some from fear, some for political purposes, and some for religious. Some women undoubtedly are forced into wearing them, some feel obliged to, but some also 'choose' to. What is so hard to understand about that.

TwigtheWonderkid said:

France are absolutely right to ban it in public, and it's high time we followed suit.

The state should have no opinion on what people choose to wear. There are obviously security issues at play in covered faces, but that is a side effect of Western nations sleep walking into 24x7 monitoring of it's population.

If some people choose to cover their veils, then that is their choice and nothing to do with anyone else or the state.

[jesta1865]

Kermit power said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

wolves_wanderer said:

I wonder if you would be so keen on clothing being banned to suit a religious group

We have that now. How far would I get before being arrested is I wore a T shirt proclaim "Jesus / Allah was a ****.

I would never be allowed to wear that, because it's offensive to others. So to answer your question, I have no problem with t shirts like that being banned.

And what if "others" decided that T shirts in general were offensive? Would you be happy for T shirts to be banned?

if it was the majority of people in the uk, then no i wouldn't like it, but it would be democracy in action and i would have to live by it, same as others have to.

[FredClogs]

Democracy isn't about mob rule, it's primary function is to protect innocent minorities and protect the rights of people to practice whatever harmless personal choices they happen to decide upon.

Democracy is about giving voice to people, no matter how daft they might be, not removing it.

It's a very sad reflection of UK culture and education that people don't recognise this.

[jesta1865]

tangerine_sedge said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

France are absolutely right to ban it in public, and it's high time we followed suit.

The state should have no opinion on what people choose to wear. There are obviously security issues at play in covered faces, but that is a side effect of Western nations sleep walking into 24x7 monitoring of it's population.

If some people choose to cover their veils, then that is their choice and nothing to do with anyone else or the state.

so no one should have to wear protective clothing at all? sorry but yes there should be some limits on what people wear in public, people have already used the full on veil etc to commit crimes, if people wanted to fit in with the society they have moved to they would have to concede that perhaps they should remove the veil, not wear a helmet in a shop etc.

the problem is that some parts of our society do want the tail to wag the dog.