Muslim Folks: help me defeat this xenophobic nonsense

The British empire didn’t take much notice of pre-existing political, religious and cultural divides. When the empire lost control the divides returned – on the basis of religion.

If you think I am wrong to associate religious symbols with terrorism and violence (sometimes including robbery) then I suggest you provide alternative explanations for many of the world’s current ills and conflicts, Molgrips

I wasn’t (not that you’re right of course).

I was pointing out how ridiculous it is to compare a strong symbol of religious adherance and piety with something that either keeps your face warm or conceals your identity for nefarious purposes.

If you can’t see the difference then you’re not equipped to debate on these threads.

Are there numerous cases of people wearing a burqa/niqab committing robberies then?

isn’t that like a place getting done over several times by someone on a mountain bike so banning MTBers but roadies are OK?

Either face coverings are OK or they aren’t, legally afaik you don’t get special dispensation for religion/culture.

Other, special arrangements fair enough, ie ask the council to close a few roads for a cultural/religious event yeah that should be discussed, close roads just for a laugh no chance. (Though I hope the consideration would be given due to the number of people ie if a large community of residents or cyclists or whatever asked they would be given the same consideration eg terrahawks street play) But everyday stuff should apply to everyone equally.

something that either keeps your face warm or conceals your identity for nefarious purposes

covering your face is either OK or it’s not, niqab or balaclava or scarf or buff can all cover your face, it’s only nefarious if you then get up to something dodgy.

I thought it had been decided a few pages back that face covering was OK, now several people seem to be saying it depends what face covering you use.

Either face coverings are OK or they aren’t, legally afaik you don’t get special dispensation for religion/culture.

I’d agree in general.

The thing is though, I suspect we don’t enforce these things as strictly with religion-associated clothing because of cultural sensitivity when it comes to Muslims.

Broadly speaking cultural sensitivity towards Muslims is a good thing, as there are lots of bigoted arseholes out there who would love to make an issue of things like this for no good reason.

If there are genuine security concerns then by all means enforce the policy for everyone.

covering your face is either OK or it’s not, niqab or balaclava or scarf or buff can all cover your face, it’s only nefarious if you then get up to something dodgy.

Surely the acceptability of wearing a balaclava is about context – I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid if you wore one skiing on a particularly cold day in the Alps. They might be concerned if it was a 15 degree day in Birmingham though.

Broadly speaking cultural sensitivity towards Muslims is a good thing, as there are lots of bigoted arseholes out there who would love to make an issue of things like this for no good reason.

true I guess, but I’ve got a bit of a thing about any religion getting special treatment (I’m pretty pissed off with sunday trading laws esp. when it’s 7am I want to get to the lakes and I’ve no petrol.)

D0NK – Member

Either face coverings are OK or they aren’t, legally afaik you don’t get special dispensation for religion/culture.

The bizarre thing about this thread, and this entire subject of conversation, is that it’s really simple- when you’re in a place where it’s security relevant, you may be asked to show your face, whether it’s a motorbike helmet or a burqa or a balaclava. (used to do this often in my old job). There is no special dispensation nor any suggestion there should be. Some people like to pretend it’s otherwise for their own reasons, make your own assumptions why this is…

NOrthwind yeah IIRC you and several others said that earlier on then Birky mentioned the petrol station thing and I asked if it was company policy, no-one has confirmed yet. I’ll fire up google.

<edit>Tesco

true I guess, but I’ve got a bit of a thing about any religion getting special treatment.

I’m with you there. You should hear me ranting about how churches and mosques etc get to carry out regular noise pollution (bells/call to prayer etc) that would never be considered acceptable for anyone else. 😉

I’m not sure that the burqa/niqab is particularly a religious issue though, more a cultural one. As I said above, I find them quite weird and unsettling, and I suspect it’s probably got an element of men controlling their wives etc – but basically I don’t know that much about it and it’s really none of my business.

If women are being co-erced into wearing them then I don’t think that should be condoned, but going in heavy-handed telling other people that their culture is all a load of bullshit and banning aspects of it isn’t generally the best way to win them over.

Try walking around an airport in a balaclava or a crash helmet, see how long it takes for the police to tell you to remove it. It’s not just about showing your face when your passport is being checked.

One can’t express an opinion which includes negative comment on religion on this forum without having one’s intelligence insulted, being accused of trolling or being insulted.

Are you being serious !!

This forum is FULL of anti religious comments 😐

It amazes me sometimes how much anti religious stuff gets posted here, more than any of the forums I use by a country mile.

Have you even seen any of the numerous threads on religion that there has been on here before ????

There is no special dispensation nor any suggestion there should be. Some people like to pretend it’s otherwise for their own reasons, make your own assumptions why this is…

I don’t know but I suspect it could be possible that it’s less likely to be enforced with regard to religious dress, for fear of appearing to discriminate.

But like I said, the reason there is a fear of appearing to discriminate is because lots of people actually do discriminate.

Try walking around an airport in a balaclava or a crash helmet,

well I’m, presuming the pastafarian driver doesn’t actually believe in the noodly great one and was just proving a point – nicely done. Was wondering if someone had tried to prove this one.

I’m not sure that the burqa/niqab is particularly a religious issue though, more a cultural one.

I don’t know but I suspect it could be possible that it’s less likely to be enforced with regard to religious dress, for fear of appearing to discriminatemake your mind up grum 🙂

tricky one eh?

Does religious sensitivity include allowing one group to provoke another group through dress and other visual symbols. I find the big beards as offensive as the burka in the same way as I find the red, white and blue kerb stones in NI some parts of NI offensive. It’s one religious group being provocative towards another. It’s claiming possession through symbols.

make your mind up grum
tricky one eh?

Well it’s debatable innit? It’s definitely associated with religion, but from my limited reading up on it many Muslims don’t see it as an intrinsic part of their faith, and some would argue it’s purely cultural.

I suppose there I was using the term religious dress as shorthand rather than saying ‘dress which some perceive to be religious yet may be more cultural in nature’.

Which was a bit pointless as I’ve ended up typing it out anyway. 🙂

Well it’s debatable innit? It’s definitely associated with religion, but from my limited reading up on it many Muslims don’t see it as an intrinsic part of their faith

They’d be Shiites then.

I’m very late to this thread, but I think that the best way to “defeat this xenophobia” is to give them no oxygen by explicitly avoiding double standards when dealing with people.

Sensitivity can be a good thing, but it can also lead to situations like this link to ex-muslim site[/url] .

TL:DR ex muslim (Nahla Mahmood) living in the UK is subject to threats to herself and her family from muslims, including an ex Lib Dem councillor.

Gets told that British police “can do nothing”.

The real arguement is ?

TL:DR ex muslim (Nahla Mahmood) living in the UK is subject to threats to herself and her family from muslims, including an ex Lib Dem councillor.

Gets told that British police “can do nothing”.

Hmmm… I agree that’s shocking but it’s more to do with people just not doing their jobs surely? I think quite a lot of cases of supposed bias towards Muslims involve someone not doing their job properly then blaming ‘PC gone mad’.

Try walking around an airport in a balaclava or a crash helmet, see how long it takes for the police to tell you to remove it. It’s not just about showing your face when your passport is being checked.

Agreed. But you don’t have a good reason to be walking about an airport in a balaclava. More realistically would someone wearing a medical mask for a facial injury be told to remove it? No.

How about someone wearing a surgical mask, as popular in parts of Asia?

No that’s fine too.

I think that the best way to “defeat this xenophobia” is to give them no oxygen by explicitly avoiding double standards when dealing with people.

So force everyone to wear niqabs? That’s one solution I suppose.

But you don’t have a good reason to be walking about an airport in a balaclava.

Do we have a list of acceptable “good reasons”*?

Face masks are common and accepted in asia, again I wonder how well it would go down in a UK airport, better than a balaclava no doubt but would security be ok with it?

*and does it include “my god may require it, we’re not sure, it’s open to debate but a lot of my peers wear this garb” Dunno why I’m labouring this point TBH, just seeing where it goes I suppose.

Can you help me construct a valid counter argument to this nonsense to go with my utter disdain and feeling of disgust?

So force everyone to wear niqabs? That’s one solution I suppose.

If after seven pages that’s your best attempt at a valid counter argument I suggest leaving the facebook page alone.

covering your face is either OK or it’s not, niqab or balaclava or scarf or buff can all cover your face, it’s only nefarious if you then get up to something dodgy.

Slight mis-interpretation of what I was saying.

I think that the best way to “defeat this xenophobia” is to give them no oxygen by explicitly avoiding double standards when dealing with people.

Criticism of religion eg “niqabs are a tool of power in the oppression of women” is not xenophobic or islamophobic. In a secular society we have a right to the criticism of religion, in this case Islamophobia/Xenophobia is simply a political term used to intimidate people into silence. It serves to help Islamism in that charges of offence and Islamophobia are the equivalent of secular fatwas.

We as a society should be able to construct a political discourse that is both anti-racist and anti-fundamentalist so that vulnerable groups such as women are protected.

Slight mis-interpretation of what I was saying.

I just re-read it, accepted, apologies.

Do we have a list of acceptable “good reasons”*?

Feel free to draw one up. I was suggesting a degree of common-sense and judgement may be employed by the airport security folk.

Someone wearing a niqab: probably religious reasons.

Someone wearing a facemask: probably cultural and hygiene reasons.

Someone wearing a balaclava: probably worth a little chat to at the very least.

I don’t think that is unreasonable in the slightest. The balaclava is out of place. Aren’t security personnel are supposed to look for stuff that is out of place as part of their job?

Criticism of religion eg “niqabs are a tool of power in the oppression of women” is not xenophobic or islamophobic

Rather depends on how it is stated I think.
Stated simply like that then I’d agree.

Stated as in the OP, with a picture strongly implying an equivalence with terrorists/robbers and using divisive phrases like “Another example of one law for them and another law for us“ – then yes it certainly is xenophobic.

common sense you say?
😉

Whilst I agree with what you say, Tom, I fail to see how a state in which the monarch/head of state is also the head of the church can be viewed as secular.

Well… it’s pretty easy to find victims of male genital mutilation who seem quite happy about it.

Holy shit, are you utterly intellectually bankrupt? Circumcision is a whole different physiological ball game carried out for very different reasons. Male circumcision is done 1) In a religious setting…because…well that’s what you do and it’s not overly harmful and 2) For health reasons.

FGM is carried out with the specific goal of not allowing women to enjoy sex. By making this kind of remark you highlight yourself as a traitor to western liberal values and out yourself as the worst kind of left wing apologist.

Whilst I agree with what you say, Tom, I fail to see how a state in which the monarch/head of state is also the head of the church can be viewed as secular.

Britains an odd one isn’t it. We never quite go all the way, I mean we’re bordering on being secularist….just like we’re almost a proper democracy if it wasn’t for the monarchy and the lords.

Whilst I agree with what you say, Tom, I fail to see how a state in which the monarch/head of state is also the head of the church can be viewed as secular.

QE2 does not impose on her subjects the requirement to adhere to any specific religious rulings.

Thats one of the reasons we are so lucky to live in such a green and pleasant land.

Male Circumcision and FGM both amount to genital mutilation for (in the majorty of cases) no medical reason they are comparable in that respect, particularly as the individual is rarely given the choice to agree or disagree to the procedure.

Whilst the pros and cons of male circumcision are debatable peyote, male circumcision doesn’t effect sexual functioning to the same extent as female circumcision and does at least have some uses. For example lowering HIV transmission rates.

The point is, they really aren’t carried out for the same reason.

1) In a religious setting…because…well that’s what you do and it’s not overly harmful

oops. Not overly harmful? I’m not sure, do you still have a foreskin? Mind if I snip away at it a bit? It’s still genital mutilation and child circumcision should only be done in the few cases of valid health reasons – I guess adults can choose to get it done if they really must.

Getting a bit OT tho

For example lowering HIV transmission rates.

sauce? <edit> googled it, well I never!

I would agree with you donk but it’s still not done for the same reason as FGM, FGM is about controlling womens sexuality. It’s as simple as that.

how about they are both wrong, as simple as that?

You can argue about which is worse if you want but I take issue with “well that’s what you do”

Circumcision is a whole different physiological ball game

Yes of course it is – but you’re still talking about chopping a bit off the end off your genitalia for religious reasons.

So in context, as an answer to surfers question (“Would we find female genital mutilation acceptable if we found victims of it who did?”) I was making the point that we already accept men who chop bits off themselves and their baby sons because their God/scripture/culture told them to.

a traitor to western liberal values and out yourself as the worst kind of left wing apologist

I see you’ve read my CV then. 😆

So what reasons do you think circumcision of males is carried out for?

So you do not see any difference between that and type III FGM which is effectively the destruction of a womans entire genitalia. It involves removing the clitoris, the inner and outer labia and then the wound is closed leaving a small hole.

To understand the reasons why any operation like this is carried out you have to look at it’s long term effects. So looking at the long term effects this has on women, why is it carried out? Male circumcision causes comparatively few long term problems, so why is this carried out? If you think there is equivalence between FGM and male circumcision in terms of physiological effect and the reasons as to why it is carried out then, as I have mentioned before, you are intellectually bankrupt.

British law is “common law” rather than “civil law”, cheeky boy. Common law is based on rulings which are based on the customs of the country. In the case of the UK, the customs of a society based on the Christian ethics found in the New Testament. Whilst the influence of the protestant church on the judicial system is declining it should not be underestimated. Cases where the church view does not prevail make headlines.

This thread is worse than my car one.

how about they are both wrong, as simple as that?

In much the same way that shoplifting a Mars bar and stabbing someone in the face are both wrong, yes.

Speaking as a fairly vocal opponent against ritual male circumcision, comparing male to female “circumcision” is idiotic. They’re both “wrong” but they’re vastly different degrees of wrong.