Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?

[Skip]

If it came to a referendum, I would vote for disbanding all religions, without any limiting clause.
Of course, if enforced, this would simply drive them underground, as it did in the so-called communist regimes of the USSR and its subject nations. When the occupation ended, Eastern Europe reverted to its various death cults and began to fragment into its constituent tribes. Now it's rapidly degenerating into fascist barbarism. As long as people are crazy, it matters very little which kind of madness they're carrying to an extreme.

If we wanted to take an intelligent stand against religion, we could start by rescinding its special privileges - in zoning for the houses of worship, in tax exemptions, in holiday allowances and public displays, sectarian charities, separate schools with their militarist indoctrination. If we wanted to take a stand against religion, we would insist on quality education, nutrition, health care and opportunity for all children, and the protection of all potential victims, and the equal rights of all people, regardless of ethnic origin, gender, income, age or social status.

If we're not prepared to do that, piecemeal persecution of one group or another, according to seasonal paranoia, will only make things worse.

GIA, you keep yelling about the oppression of women. Yet you advocate centering out one group of oppressed women and imposing on them the secondary oppression of another culture's preferences in women's clothing. You don't even seem to recognize your own paternalism. You take it for granted that women ought to choose your way. They should want to be pawns in your fight against their men.
If you were serious about the value of women, you would support their effort to liberate themselves. If you had any respect for women, you would listen to them, instead of imposing your 'superior' judgment by force.

I submit, sir, that you are either a hypocrite of nearly Bjornstrandian dimensions, or else you haven't thought through the cost and consequences of the what you propose.

[Hobbes' Choice]

[q

A democracy is capable of passing undemocratic laws. I gave you one example. There are many more.
Was the exclusion of all women from the vote undemocratic?
Your problem is that you do not understand democracy.

No one does as none of us live in one. We are all living in oligarchies.

Regards
DL

Thanks. One way to back out of a silly argument is to contradict yourself..

[Greatest I am]

Oops

[Greatest I am]

If it came to a referendum, I would vote for disbanding all religions, without any limiting clause.
.

Thanks for this.

Since secular law has outgrown all poor religious laws, I agree.

As to women. The good of the many who do not wish oppression, is more important than the good of the few who embrace oppression.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Oops.

[Greatest I am]

[q

A democracy is capable of passing undemocratic laws. I gave you one example. There are many more.
Was the exclusion of all women from the vote undemocratic?
Your problem is that you do not understand democracy.

No one does as none of us live in one. We are all living in oligarchies.

Regards
DL

Thanks. One way to back out of a silly argument is to contradict yourself..

Put it in gear man.

Any law passed by a democratic system is by definition a democratic law.

That equation would apply to any kind of system.

Regards
DL

[Hobbes' Choice]

No one does as none of us live in one. We are all living in oligarchies.

Regards
DL

Thanks. One way to back out of a silly argument is to contradict yourself..

Put it in gear man.

Any law passed by a democratic system is by definition a democratic law.

That equation would apply to any kind of system.

Regards
DL

You are just making a fool of yourself. According to you there is, and never was a democracy.

[Greatest I am]

Thanks. One way to back out of a silly argument is to contradict yourself..

Put it in gear man.

Any law passed by a democratic system is by definition a democratic law.

That equation would apply to any kind of system.

Regards
DL[/quote]

You are just making a fool of yourself. According to you there is, and never was a democracy.[/quote]

Fools are those that do not recognize reality.

http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-dat ... b014efbf27

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

Regards
DL

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Esteemed Skip. Naturally, I'm amused but interested that you seek to apply the term hypocrite to me. It rings biblical ..

It would be helpful to have just one example of the hypocrisy you note.

What I notice is that the Left - radical liberal and radical liberalism is my preferred term - see and understand themselves as agents of righteousness, truth, and goodness, and when they encounter an oppositional stance they see it - perceive it - as the evil that opposes their goodness.

Can you talk a little more about hypocricy? What is it? Who most embodies it? What creates it and what is its cure?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Esteemed Skip. Naturally, I'm amused but interested that you seek to apply the term hypocrite to me. It rings biblical ..

It would be helpful to have just one example of the hypocrisy you note.

What I notice is that the Left - radical liberal and radical liberalism is my preferred term - see and understand themselves as agents of righteousness, truth, and goodness, and when they encounter an oppositional stance they see it - perceive it - as the evil that opposes their goodness.

Can you talk a little more about hypocricy? What is it? Who most embodies it? What creates it and what is its cure?

I prefer 'politically correct' because that lot gives 'the left' and liberals a bad name. They are nauseatingly self-righteous. They don't seem to understand that one can have empathy for people without being a patronising git.

[Skip]

Except, in this instance, I'm not the one sacrificing the freedom and safety of women in order to feel righteous about having taken a decisive stand against oppression. I'm not the actor here; I merely oppose taking an action that accomplishes the opposite of its stated purpose; that contravenes the stated principles of its advocates.

You don't like looking at those garments because they symbolize a nasty religious creed. So you ban them from your streets, supermarkets and banks. That's wrong but honest. Saying you're doing it for the wearer's benefit is dishonest.

The good of the many who do not wish oppression, is more important than the good of the few who embrace oppression.

You keep saying this, without in any way demonstrating that the a dress code is instrumental in lifting oppression from anybody. If you want to help people, change the way they live, not the way they dress.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

I can only repeat what I have been saying often and for awhile now: The really interesting thing, and the way to get advantage from contentious conversations, is to locate and isolate the predicates that drive our views and perspectives. We tend - though I suppose this is a statement of the obvious - to understand our perspective, or judgment of something as it were, as being logically correct. And it seems to offend us nearly that someone else has a very different outlook. What is the cause of this? The difference in driving predicates. The more that I look into this, the more interesting it becomes, and the more relevant the endeavor to locate the predicates, label them, and get them out in the open.
____________________________________

It by no means follows that a woman who wears a modest head covering is affiliated with a 'nasty religious creed'. Even 'our' women, now - though it seems incredible given the permissiveness of today - have self-established modesty-limits. These are defined in a cultural setting. The same is likely true for the women who wear a total covering: It is what they feel comfortable with.

But the banning of the get-up is multi-purposive. There are 5-6 major reasons why it might be a good idea to ban it. Each of them is clearly sticky and difficult and touches on fundamental rights, so-called.

[Hobbes' Choice]

If there is one woman that wants to wear these items, then you have restricted her freedom to do so. This is not how democracies seek to build their culture up. The fact is that many still want to wear these items.
Democracy is nothing if it does not protect personal freedoms.

Such a law fails on two grounds. Not only would it restrict the freedom of choice of any woman that chooses to wear those items; it also is not general enough, so that the law also restricts a religio/ethnic culture. The law would have to be more general and ban all face coverings for it to be truly democratic. Fuck that I say. I can think of several reasons why I might want to cover my face, given the surveillance culture we live in, and the great need we have for political protest.

The items are not the problem. The free choice to wear what you want is not the problem. The problem resides in other people (fathers, husbands) forcing women to wear them when they do not want to.

So rather than give in to you xenophobia and ban the wearing of these items, any law should be devised to achieve the same thing, simply by banning a person from forcing another to wear them. Thus it should be a law that no one ought to be able to force another to wear them. This would give women the freedom of choice.

[Greatest I am]

Except, in this instance, I'm not the one sacrificing the freedom and safety of women in order to feel righteous about having taken a decisive stand against oppression. I'm not the actor here; I merely oppose taking an action that accomplishes the opposite of its stated purpose; that contravenes the stated principles of its advocates.

You don't like looking at those garments because they symbolize a nasty religious creed. So you ban them from your streets, supermarkets and banks. That's wrong but honest. Saying you're doing it for the wearer's benefit is dishonest.

The good of the many who do not wish oppression, is more important than the good of the few who embrace oppression.

You keep saying this, without in any way demonstrating that the a dress code is instrumental in lifting oppression from anybody. If you want to help people, change the way they live, not the way they dress.

I have a piece that I have yet to post where Muslim men are. There are not that many that come to these places.

It speaks to safety now and in the near future. See what you think of it.

Muslim men. Honor and duty to women demand that you outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka.

Think of our Penopticon world. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=pen ... 363FED0DBB

In our technological world, security of the person is relying more and more on technology. Authorities of all kinds have their satellites and cameras on in so many locations now that one can barely find a place to spit without three different camera angle shots being taken and a spitting ticket being issued by someone monitoring those camera shots and looking for your money.

Annoying? --- Perhaps. --- But great for security of the person and pleasing to our political as well as religious sense of duty and honor to women. Especially Muslim honor as Islam emphasized a man’s honor and duty to women, more than in the West. A Muslim man’s honor resides in his wife and protecting is paramount.

The point is that the state provides security to it’s citizens via this technology and that more and more technology will be used. I.E., cell phones.

It is incumbent then on the Muslim state to make it illegal to hinder any state or government from insuring the safety of all citizens, as honor and duty demands. Muslim woman should not be allowed to escape the safety umbrella that the state, in this case, Muslim men and Sharia, who must provide security of the person for Muslim women.

Honor and duty to women demands that Muslim men forbid Muslim women from wearing anything that would reduce their security. Enhancing the security of Muslim women is a Muslim man’s responsibility, duty and honor. To not accept and indeed demand the highest security for the Muslim women is dishonor and a shirking of a Muslim man’s duty.

Allah will be pleased when Muslim men step up and have their women toss their hijab, niqab and burka in the dustbin, as Muslim honor demands. A veil is What Allah likes.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I can only repeat what I have been saying often and for awhile now: The really interesting thing, and the way to get advantage from contentious conversations, is to locate and isolate the predicates that drive our views and perspectives. We tend - though I suppose this is a statement of the obvious - to understand our perspective, or judgment of something as it were, as being logically correct. And it seems to offend us nearly that someone else has a very different outlook. What is the cause of this? The difference in driving predicates. The more that I look into this, the more interesting it becomes, and the more relevant the endeavor to locate the predicates, label them, and get them out in the open.
____________________________________

It by no means follows that a woman who wears a modest head covering is affiliated with a 'nasty religious creed'. Even 'our' women, now - though it seems incredible given the permissiveness of today - have self-established modesty-limits. These are defined in a cultural setting. The same is likely true for the women who wear a total covering: It is what they feel comfortable with.

But the banning of the get-up is multi-purposive. There are 5-6 major reasons why it might be a good idea to ban it. Each of them is clearly sticky and difficult and touches on fundamental rights, so-called.

How is hiding hair modest?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7IrvkhUb3Y

Hair is a metaphor for sexuality according to this woman. If Muslim men cannot get past their weakness, it is not right that they should make their women suffer the denial of her sexual nature.

Regards
DL