Belgium outlaws the Burka.

[LondonLax]

As Awol was saying, visit a Muslim country, and count how many people you see wearing a Burka or Niqab. It won't be many. Far fewer than I saw last time I was home in Bolton anyway, I bet.

Well that really depends on which Muslim country you visit doesn't it?

[thetrees]

I was waiting for the metro in Brussels last week and there was a lesbian couple heavily petting on the platform (standing, before anyone asks)

So they are open minded about something

[P3te]

As Awol was saying, visit a Muslim country, and count how many people you see wearing a Burka or Niqab. It won't be many. Far fewer than I saw last time I was home in Bolton anyway, I bet.

visit a muslim country and have your bird walk round in shorts and a boob tube and see how long it lasts

bottom line is its perfectly fine for them not to allow that, same way its perfectly fine if belgium choose not to allow the burka

[LondonLax]

As Awol was saying, visit a Muslim country, and count how many people you see wearing a Burka or Niqab. It won't be many. Far fewer than I saw last time I was home in Bolton anyway, I bet.

visit a muslim country and have your bird walk round in shorts and a boob tube and see how long it lasts

bottom line is its perfectly fine for them not to allow that, same way its perfectly fine if belgium choose not to allow the burka

I have never really understood the whole "We can't do X in their country so they shouldn’t be able to do Y in ours" argument.

We make our laws based on what we think is right, not as a reaction to what people do in a backwards liberty denying country.

[kidlewis]

As Awol was saying, visit a Muslim country, and count how many people you see wearing a Burka or Niqab. It won't be many. Far fewer than I saw last time I was home in Bolton anyway, I bet.

visit a muslim country and have your bird walk round in shorts and a boob tube and see how long it lasts

bottom line is its perfectly fine for them not to allow that, same way its perfectly fine if belgium choose not to allow the burka

I have never really understood the whole "We can't do X in their country so they shouldn’t be able to do Y in ours" argument.

We make our laws based on what we think is right, not as a reaction to what people do in a backwards liberty denying country.

so if there was a referendum in belgium and the majority voted for a ban on the burkha, then it's fine is it?

i'd say yes, but many people would say no even if the majority of people would want a ban.

[wiganvillain]

As Awol was saying, visit a Muslim country, and count how many people you see wearing a Burka or Niqab. It won't be many. Far fewer than I saw last time I was home in Bolton anyway, I bet.

visit a muslim country and have your bird walk round in shorts and a boob tube and see how long it lasts

bottom line is its perfectly fine for them not to allow that, same way its perfectly fine if belgium choose not to allow the burka

I have never really understood the whole "We can't do X in their country so they shouldn’t be able to do Y in ours" argument.

We make our laws based on what we think is right, not as a reaction to what people do in a backwards liberty denying country.

Surely the point is that wherever one lives one expects residents and visitors to respect the "norms" and the "norm" in Western Europe isn't religious zealotry

[LondonLax]

As Awol was saying, visit a Muslim country, and count how many people you see wearing a Burka or Niqab. It won't be many. Far fewer than I saw last time I was home in Bolton anyway, I bet.

visit a muslim country and have your bird walk round in shorts and a boob tube and see how long it lasts

bottom line is its perfectly fine for them not to allow that, same way its perfectly fine if belgium choose not to allow the burka

I have never really understood the whole "We can't do X in their country so they shouldn’t be able to do Y in ours" argument.

We make our laws based on what we think is right, not as a reaction to what people do in a backwards liberty denying country.

Surely the point is that wherever one lives one expects residents and visitors to respect the "norms" and the "norm" in Western Europe isn't religious zealotry

I would say the "norm" in Western Europe is freedom do dress how you like.

[P3te]

As Awol was saying, visit a Muslim country, and count how many people you see wearing a Burka or Niqab. It won't be many. Far fewer than I saw last time I was home in Bolton anyway, I bet.

visit a muslim country and have your bird walk round in shorts and a boob tube and see how long it lasts

bottom line is its perfectly fine for them not to allow that, same way its perfectly fine if belgium choose not to allow the burka

I have never really understood the whole "We can't do X in their country so they shouldn’t be able to do Y in ours" argument.

We make our laws based on what we think is right, not as a reaction to what people do in a backwards liberty denying country.

and the belgians have done what they think is right in banning the burka, so the muslims can **** off to another country if they dont like it. just like you or i should **** off elsewhere if we didnt like the policies in *generic muslim country* where we were theoretically living

[momo]

Post removed - Trent

[b23avfc]

Have we mentioned robbing a jewellers wearing a burka etc and then getting away in ....

This

[b23avfc]

Oh and if you wanna be sarcastic.. don't pm this to me, just post it up, I really don't mind:

Subject : Realisation

Sent : May 06, 2010 - 07:25 PM

Quote you "You do realise I wasn't aiming that you do realise at any one person? "

wow, no I didn't realise that. It all seems so obvious now

Chris

Especially when I wasn't aiming it at you in the first place!

[Jondaken]

I think slot of people seem to be missing the fact that Muslims fight each other a heck of a lot more than they have ever faught anyone else.

[villadude]

[leviramsey]

Basically sums up my view

If you are Amish and accustomed to seeing women only in long-sleeve, floor-length dresses with bonnets covering their hair, it must be uncomfortable to visit a non-Amish town and confront women in miniskirts, girls in tank tops, and females of every size and shape in form-fitting garments cut down to here and up to there.

But that's life in a free society. Any Amish who object to provocatively dressed females have the option of staying away or averting their gaze. Any non-Amish who are annoyed by the sight of "Little House on the Prairie" fashions can do likewise.

The mutual tolerance approach works well in this country. But some nations that require ultra-conservative Muslims to accept constant exposure to immodest attire think modern Westerners should not have to put up with the clothing choices of ultra-conservative Muslims.

These governments want to forbid women to venture into public wearing the niqab, the black dress that covers everything but the eyes, and the burqa, which covers the eyes as well. Belgium has banned them, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to do the same.

Never mind that faceless women are not exactly rampant in the West. The Belgium Muslim Council says that of the country's 500,000 Muslims, only two dozen or so keep their faces covered. Among France's 5 million Muslims, those in veils number just 2,000.

So why are some people so riled? Muslims suspect the motive is religious bigotry, but the opponents insist they are safeguarding the values of a democratic society as well as the rights of women.

The veil, we are told, is a symbol of oppression imposed on women by husbands and other male relatives. Could be. But how do the critics know? The same thing can be said about surgically enhanced breasts in Europe and the United States.

Just because a few adults may be coerced into doing something doesn't mean others should not be allowed to do it of their own free will. If men are employing violence to control wives and daughters, the reasonable response is to punish them sternly while encouraging women to report the crimes.

But outlawing the burqa merely trades one form of compulsion (you must wear this) for another (you may not wear this). Besides, it is bound to backfire: If brutal men can no longer prevent women from wearing veils when they leave the house, they can prevent them from leaving the house at all.

It may be difficult to interact with someone whose face you can't see. But lots of things that are difficult when unfamiliar soon become tolerable or irrelevant.

When I first met someone I knew was gay, many years ago, I was very ill at ease. The first time I conversed with someone wearing a safety pin through her eyebrow, likewise. In both cases, I got over it. I suspect that if they had no choice, the anti-burqa crowd would adapt as well.

A more imaginative argument is that covering the face is an attack on civilized norms. "The niqab and the burqa represent a refusal to exist as a person in the eyes of others," says French parliamentary leader Jean-Francois Cope. Journalist Christopher Hitchens calls them "the most aggressive sign of a refusal to integrate or accommodate."

But in a free society, none of us is obligated to integrate. The Amish don't. Neither do the Hare Krishnas. Or Trappist monks. Wearing a suicide bomb around your waist is aggressive. Concealing your face is peaceable.

Veiled women are not refusing to exist in the eyes of others. They, like all the rest of us, are merely deciding on what terms to make their existence visible.

It's also claimed that covered faces are a security threat, since criminals have donned burqas in a handful of instances. Veils can be put to sinister uses—just as scarves, ski masks and sunglasses are often worn by camera-shy bank robbers. We don't ban those, and absent compelling evidence of an epidemic of burqa-enabled felonies, we shouldn't ban veils.

Contrary to the prohibitionists, being deprived of an option is not liberation, and choosing your own clothing is not aggression. The few Muslims who take cover behind the burqa should be tolerated as long as they observe the first axiom of a free society: Live and let live. Maybe someday their opponents will learn to do the same.

[Chindie]

My view as well Levi.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Ban religion.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

If they don't want to treat their women as equals then they can take their Burka and go back to the societies which accept such medieval nonsense.

Banning it outright probably isn't the best option, but it's really just a way of letting them know the rules of living in western society. Educating and freeing the women of Islam is the ideal way, but really can you see that ever happening within our lifetime, or even in a hundred years? This is a religion (well, isolated sects) that has spent thousands of years enhancing their own patriarchal ways. **** knows why they feel the need to rape and kill women for falling in love with the 'wrong' man, but they do.

If this ban even makes one woman sit up and feel as if there is a chance she can be free from her shackles then it's done some good.

[Chindie]

What if they are British? They have no society to go back to, this is their society. It's a society that accepts a persons freedoms (well, broadly, asides from the terrorism stuff and what not but thats not the point I'm making).

Not all women who wear the niqab wear it because they are forced to. Many will wear it because their interpretation of their faith instructs that they should, that is their choice.

Banning it isn't the right way to go about combatting any issue with it.

Thats not to say I like it - I don't, far from it. But I understand and accept the reasoning behind it, on the whole I don't think it's that big of a political issue really and for the women who don't want to wear it but are forced, the right thing for society to do is try to help these women on a matter that is much much more than a piece of clothing.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

These sects of Islam are dangerously fanatical and blinded by faith. I'm afraid educaion and a helping hand do no good in a world where a man would stone a woman to death for leaving her home. As much as I'd love to walk up to one of these women and take their hand and show them a different lifestyle, it just doesn't work like that.

To change it would require a constitutional change in their faith. It just wouldn't happen.

Unless you literally take these women from their homes and educate them. Then in which case are we really better than them? The children need to be educated in all walks of life, not just the one we'd like them to learn, and not just the one that is forced upon them by their religion. But again, that will never happen with these sects we are talking about.

I don't fully understand why these men do what they do. But I know they must be sent a message.

As for the British comment, if a woman fully understands the world around her and can make an informed decision without any external influence to wear these garments, then I can only say good luck to them. I just don't believe these women exist, not yet anyway.

[Chindie]

These sects of Islam are dangerously fanatical and blinded by faith.

Are all practioners who support the veil dangerously fanatical, or is that just ignorant rhetoric? Are some? Undoubtedly. All? No. Some are simply quite conservative. Some may be generally fairly liberal Muslims who, in a nation/society that they feel is threatening or makes them uneasy in their faith, decide that they will follow their rules more to the letter. And so on.

I'm afraid educaion and a helping hand do no good in a world where a man would stone a woman to death for leaving her home. As much as I'd love to walk up to one of these women and take their hand and show them a different lifestyle, it just doesn't work like that.

Education works, it may take time but you would eventually be able to help those that are forced to wear the veil.

To change it would require a constitutional change in their faith. It just wouldn't happen.

Not necessarily. Does it take a constitutional change in a woman who has a violent partner to seek help? It's a similar scenario. Many eventually seek help of their own accord.

Unless you literally take these women from their homes and educate them. Then in which case are we really better than them? The children need to be educated in all walks of life, not just the one we'd like them to learn, and not just the one that is forced upon them by their religion. But again, that will never happen with these sects we are talking about.

I don't think many women, even in very very conservative Muslim homes, with the veil forced on them, are so insular that they cannot ever come into contact with some form of state intervention - and that means you can educate them. I assume they sometimes have to take a bus somewhere, they're covered in posters for one thing or another. And so on. It's not impossible. These women do go out and about - hence why we're aware of the veil, if they didn't they wouldn't need it.

I don't fully understand why these men do what they do. But I know they must be sent a message.

Men who do force the veil on them are most likely doing it from a dominance point of view wrapped up in religious rhetoric, or are very conservative in their faith. I don't think there are many of them, to be frank.

As for the British comment, if a woman fully understands the world around her and can make an informed decision without any external influence to wear these garments, then I can only say good luck to them. I just don't believe these women exist, not yet anyway.

They do. You've surely seen Muslim women wearing headscarves and dressing conservatively? The veil is just a step on. Just as many Muslim women dress in the same way any Western woman would, interpreting their faith in such a way as to allow them (if they care at all), some interpret it in a way that dictates they must go beyond a headscarf and dress in the veil.

These women do exist, in fact I would say that they are almost certainly in the majority. The idea that the majority is the wife to a man forcing her to dress in such a way is, well, wrong as far as I'm aware.