On Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme, using a feminism argument to justify the wearing of a burka in court (when you’re the accused).

The mind did boggle; not sure what was more incredulous: the idea that having the right to cover your face when you’re being questioned in court is defensible, or using a feminist argument in the context of a religious dictate that subjugates women.

Did you hear the one about the person (bloke?) on the internet that thought they could tell other people what their opinions are?

Funny how you always leap to the defence of Christianity against any slight on here – yet you’re quite happy with a nice bit of Islamophobia.

I’m not sure about the court issue, but it does seem to be a popular misconception amongst a certain section of western men (perpetuated by a media with a hidden agenda) to assume that Muslim women necessarily feel oppressed by the traditional clothing..
I’m not saying that it’s all a bed of roses by any stretch of the imagination, but from my reading, many women are fiercely proud to wear a burkha, and from my own experience of Muslim families, home life is often matriarchal in nature..

Which would seem to indicate that in a society with different cultural ideologies to our own (imagine that if you can!) feminism and traditional clothing can indeed go hand in hand

yawn

Don’t be silly yunki. We can laugh at this completely contradictory muslim idea of what feminism is, because we in westernised societies know that the true feminist path to enlightened female emancipation is for them to take their clothes off.

Thats right innit?

*makes tea*

the idea that having the right to cover your face when you’re being questioned in court is defensible

Isn’t it?

a religious dictate that subjugates women.

Please elaborate.

westernised societies know that the true feminist path to enlightened female emancipation is for them to take their clothes off.

binners – burka = full body covering, niqab = face covering. Seems like you & the trolling OP are on the same lines.

I will defend an individual’s right to practise Islam free of bigotry as staunchly as Christianity but I won’t defend it when someone is trying to argue that covering your head in a court of law is a defensible idea based on religious freedoms.

Also, the idea that Islamic women do not feel oppressed by the wearing of a burka is fine but it is still the very definition of hegemony. That’s also fine, I just find it startlingly ironic.

No, but I did hear the one about the inflatable dolls that blow themselves up.

Why do people care what these women wear on their faces? Seriously!?
It’s not like “Oh, I wanted to go around with my face covered and they wouldn’t let me..” or “I really want to see what they look like..” or, jeez I dunno. But why? Idon’tgetit.

Did you hear the one about the person (bloke?) on the internet that thought they could tell other people what their opinions are?

Exactly, we all know that anyone who does this should be rounded up and set upon by lazer-wolves.

That’s the women’s job.

Why do people care what these women wear on their faces? Seriously!?

Well, specifically in this case, it was because the woman concerned was the defendant in a court of law and was being questioned by the prosecutor as to her alleged offenses (intimidating witnesses was mentioned) and the consequence of her face being covered up would have been that the jury would not have been able to see her face when she answered questions.

can we all just agree that people that believe in god(s) are stupid and move on 😉

I will defend an individual’s right to practise Islam free of bigotry as staunchly as Christianity

Bollocks. You clearly have a problem with the idea that Muslims can be feminists, which makes you a bigot.

FWIW I don’t agree that there should be different rules on face covering in court depending on religious belief.

Bollocks. You clearly have a problem with the idea that Muslims can be feminists, which makes you a bigot.

I think that there’s humour in that comment right? It’s cool if not. But yes, the idea that ‘feminism’ and ‘islam’ are perfectly compatible does make me go hmmm.

FWIW I don’t agree that there should be different rules on face covering in court depending on religious belief.

Honestly that is mostly what I was questioning here. There should be no face covering of any kind. It’s kind of important to be able to see the face of a person when they are answering questions under oath.

Bollocks. You clearly have a problem with the idea that Muslims can be feminists, which makes you a bigot.

I think he was against using feminism as an argument to support unequal dress codes for men and women as being bollocks. Not the same as being muslim and feminist, which clearly by definition couldn’t support inequality between the sexes.

It’s definitely not something the government should be legislating on but IMO if there’s a legitimate reason for banning clothing (at certain places) that covers your face then it should apply unilaterally – religion shouldn’t be reason enough for exemption.

the idea that ‘feminism’ and ‘islam’ are perfectly compatible does make me go hmmm.

I find that about Christianity, mind you that’s the relegion I have most experience with.

It’s definitely not something the government should be legislating on

In court I think that it probably should.

Bollocks, I’ve got to go out and do some stuff but can’t…. Turn…. Laptop……… Off..

I think it’s fair to say that the general ideals behind feminism are in opposition to the general ideas behind traditional Islamic dress for women.

When blokes (of any religious persuasion) start covering themselves up in public cos it’s more godly I might have more time to defend the women’s rights to do so.

Since watching those Crazzzee mericans jousting ,I quite fancy one of these.

Obviously ,it would be visor down in Airports,banks,and petrol stations 🙂

Maybe we should all have anonymity in court.
I wonder how many people are instantly guilty because they look a bit shifty.

There was a young lady speaking after the interview this post refers to who seem to put forward a more balanced view. (Women’s Hour)

She was representing a muslim body(not sure which) and said their study had shown women wear the traditional veils for a variety of reasons: Religious, Conformity and also often family pressure, but that in her opinion the Koran did not obligate women to cover up.

She also suggested this particular young women in court now was an exception and most people would not mind removing a veil and that in fact she was just being stubborn to make a point and doing more harm than good.

Personally I’m with the French on this one.

That’s the women’s job.

I can’t see her face and feel threatened.

She demands tea, I make it. 😉

using a feminist argument in the context of a religious dictate that subjugates women.

I’m gonna liberate them women until they do what I want them to!

can we all just agree that people that believe in god(s) are stupid and move on

No. Because that would be stupid.

The Lib Dems are going to have an interesting time on this whole issue this week. There are some like Jeremy Browne who seem opposed and are calling for a national debate on whether to ban today and there is Clegg who is more opposed to governments telling people how to dress. For a party, that stands for limited state and greater personal freedom (among other things) I think Clegg is more aligned to his party’s philosophy than Browne.

Interesting that this debate is rarely extended to other religions – slight tangent, but are nuns oppressed?

Ah, the irony of telling a woman what to wear to stop her being oppressed 😉

When blokes (of any religious persuasion) start covering themselves up in public cos it’s more godly I might have more time to defend the women’s rights to do so.

Lots of men do – there are rules of dress for both women and men in Islam, Jewish and Sikh men both wear head coverings, etc etc.

but are nuns oppressed?

Probably, but comparing them to women who wear theveil/burka/niqab or whatever isn’t going to work. They’re two different situations.

It’s an interesting debate, in my view the authority of a secular justice system is a much more important part of our society than the freedom to express a religious belief. (feminism aside)

Did you hear the one about the person (bloke?) on the internet that thought they could tell other people what their opinions are?

It is your opinion that the OP shouldn’t be expressing his opinion?

Do any religions make men cover their faces ?

Interesting that this debate is rarely extended to other religions – are nuns oppressed?

Did you know that there are women in England who obey religious laws laid down by misogynstic men in undemocratic overseas regimes and that they’re forbidden to speak unnecessarily, choose their own clothing or own property?
http://www.benedictinenuns.org.uk/Community/Community/FAQ.html

So where we are now is as follows:

– To what extent are the principles of feminism and Islam fundamentally incompatible?
– To what extent are the principles of feminism and other religions fundamentally incompatible?
– To what extent can the principles of an open and transparent justice system be compromised on the grounds of religious freedom?
– What’s for lunch?

in my view the authority of a secular justice system is a much more important part of our society than the freedom to express a religious belief.

But it already is. The requirements of the legals system already trump any ‘freedom’ to express religious belief. The issue wit this particular case is just that there is no legal precedent established which would give a judge the power to force anyone to remove a veil in court. No good reason has been given as to why the woman should show her face in the courtroom (and if there were, then she would have to abide with the order of the court). The court has rightly respected the woman’s religious beliefs as much as possible, and a compromised agreed. It’s a bit of a non-story really, only in the media because of the fervour whipped up by the Daily Mail, UKIP, EDL etc.

The Islam v Feminism issue is an entirely different matter.