All the racist cods apart, does anyone have the right to tell people what they can and can’t wear over and above the bounds of accepted common decency??

I dont think we should be shy anymore about telling Muslim women that full face burka is rude and unaceptable in the West. It is not the job of govnt to “ban” them though. Plays into the hands of the real extremists, gives them something else to hate us for.

yeah but what if you are going to a fancy dress party dressed as a ghost
would you be arrested?

what are you actually gonna do strip trangressors in the street, as much as i particularly dislike all religious trappings and especially something menat to subjugate women as much as a burkha does i dont thionk teh law will be enforceable

all religions hate women….

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/sexual_discharges/lv15_19a.html
http://bible.cc/leviticus/15-19.htm
http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/garden_of_eden/gn03_16.html

I think this is Sarkozy pandering to the racists for electoral gain. “playing the race card”

I think the burka is abhorrent but I don’t think it is the place of the state to interfere

So who should intervene? Its demeaning, thoroughly so. Do you think these women actually have a choice?!!!!!!!

Whilst we are on this, what does it make Turkey then? Are they ‘racists’?!

i disagree TJ. The swastika is banned as a symbol of Nazism in Germany for obvious reasons and rightly so. So i think that anything that is deemed to be socially and morally unacceptable and propagates discrimination is a fair target.

So what about Nuns “habits”… no no the ones they wear??

Incidentally, can I just run my flag up on this one? My view is that religion is a personal issue, and nobodies business but your own.

If you choose to push it in front of other people then you have to accept that there may well be a reaction. I particularly dislike overt expressions of religion such as clothing/hats/hairstyles etc etc etc.

However, having said that its not my business to make these people into martyrs by reacting to it, other than to offer them sympathetic acceptance of their affliction. In respect of Sarkozy, I suspect his own wifes modelling exploits (and very nice they are too! ) may well actually make this all blow up in his rather silly Gaelic face, as being a really good example of why Burka wearing is in fact offering women respect whilst his overt support of the notion of women as sex objects is the precise opposite.

So for me Rasta hair, wooly hats, burkas, skull caps, bishops mitres, dog collars and so on are all a no no IMHO.

A politician in the UK would be rightly questioned deeply making statements like Sarkozy’s, however they do things slightly differently in France, and his comments must be viewed with that perspective in your mind. The French State is determinedly both secular and non diverse, they refuse to allow for Racial differences as we do in this country, not for them the endless ethnic backgrounds questionnaires, in France one is French, and that’s it. not Arab French, or Swiss white French, or Algerian, nothing, just French…

So with that in mind then the Burka is easily UN-French, it’s not part of the hereditary, nor forms any part of French Culture, nor does it fit the culture of Equality of the sexes. I can see why he said it, whether he could have said it here remains a different question.

surely this is sexual discrimination too but bibles arent banned…

New International Version (©1984)
“‘When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening.

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
“When a woman has her monthly period, she will be unclean for seven days. Those who touch her will be unclean until evening.

King James Bible
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

American King James Version
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the even.

American Standard Version
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

Bible in Basic English
And if a woman has a flow of blood from her body, she will have to be kept separate for seven days, and anyone touching her will be unclean till evening.

Douay-Rheims Bible
The woman, who at the return of the month, hath her issue of blood, shall be separated seven days.

Darby Bible Translation
And if a woman have a flux, and her flux in her flesh be blood, she shall be seven days in her separation, and whoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

English Revised Version
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

Webster’s Bible Translation
And if a woman shall have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the evening.

World English Bible
“‘If a woman has a discharge, and her discharge in her flesh is blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days: and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening.

Young’s Literal Translation
‘And when a woman hath an issue — blood is her issue in her flesh — seven days she is in her separation, and any one who is coming against her is unclean till the evening.

and heres the qurans version

In Surah 2:222
“And they ask you about menstruation. Say: the place of menstruation is a hurt and a pollution; therefore keep away from the women during her menstrual discharge and do not go near such a place until they have become clean; then when they have cleansed themselves, go in to them as Allah has commanded you; surely Allah loves those who turn much (to Him) constantly, and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean

Only an idiot thinks that burka (or other similar gear) wearing is anything to do with respect. It is a tribal custom from societies where women have a value that is measured in camels, and has no place in our society. It boils my piss to hear people babbling about “respecting other peoples cultures” and sim’lar bollox. Some things are (as close as dammit) objectively wrong, and this treatment of women is one of them.

(Now I hope this pro-fem ramt will help me get laid 🙂 )

So for me Rasta hair, wooly hats, burkas, skull caps, bishops mitres, dog collars and so on are all a no no IMHO.

None of which cover the wearer completely and (hopefully) none are forced onto anyone before they leave the house. Its about freedom. You can argue that the wearer choses to wear the Burka. If you do you dont know the society they come from.

Kimbers, I’m not sure I understand your point. The bible was written 2000 years ago, the people that wrote it had different views about menstruation to you. the fact that the bible is translated now and again, and all those references are still there* has what sort of bearing on the French president not liking a particular form of Middle Eastern culture?

*bearing in mind the Bible has all sorts of other non-PC views regarding slaves, shellfish, Ocelots etc etc…

You can argue that the wearer choses to wear the Burka. If you do you dont know the society they come from.

Wot he sed.

There are so many muslim women in my home town covered from head to toe in sheets that I dont think covering their eyes in a bit of netting would make any real difference.

Storm in a tea cup. Many Muslims in France – virtually all from North Africa = no burkas.

There are plenty of young girls who go out dressed like prostitutes, think that is probably more worthy of banning than a burka?

The Mash’s view on the subject.

Old Mo obviously doesn’t know his women otherwise it’d say “keep away from the women BEFORE her menstrual discharge”

There are so many muslim women in my home town covered from head to toe in sheets that I dont think covering their eyes in a bit of netting would make any real difference.

You dont live in Dewsbury do you? I wonder what these women are told from a young age? Are they told that all white women are inpure and prostitutes? I still remember my old Indian girlfriend being called a slag, slapper, shame on Muslims by a group of lads playing cricket. When she said she Hindu/Indian and **** off – thats when they shouted she was a whore anyway (probably meanning she was with a white guy). God I love inbred village idiots.

If the purpose of this proposed ban is about women’s rights, are there other policies being proposed that deal with the institutions and behaviours present in society that cause some women to be oppressed? e.g. is something being done about the traditions which force women to dress in particular ways?

Whilst we’re on the subject I find the concept of covering up young girls in the same garb as utterly repugnant. Who exactly are they protecting their “modesty” from? YUK!!! 😳

It doesn’t exactly do alot for integrating into British society does it? Quite the opposite, such high visibility separation is actually damaging and highly provocative imo

As said before, its subjugation. Coverings one hair/dressing modestly? Ok. However Taleban-style oppression here in the west? No thank you.

Are we sure that in today’s western society these women are actually forced to wear the burka? My personal view is that it’s a fashion statement. In these times where differences between Muslim and western societies are being made apparent, surely there are people who will migrate to either pole?

Just in case this was aimed at me :-

DrJ – Member
Only an idiot thinks that burka (or other similar gear) wearing is anything to do with respect

Could I just point out that I never said it was. Merely that Sarkozies wifes nude modelling exploits are likely to turn his argument on his head for him, and have the pro burka lobby arguing that their culture respects women and thats why they cover up, as opposed to Mr and Mrs Sarkozys attitude to women as a sex object. Not agreeing or disgreeing with either point.

It doesn’t exactly do alot for integrating into British society does it? Quite the opposite, such high visibility separation is actually damaging and highly provocative imo

What about punks? goths? Rangers and Celtic fans? Each of these groups dress in ways that express their difference and separation from others. Or does it only count when we’re talking about religion?

I don’t see your point, I can’t remember the last tinme I saw goth parents dressing their kids up like goths in order to protect their modesty? And even the most hardened footy fan doesn’t make their kid wear a football kit every day of their life.

hora – Member
As said before, its subjugation. Coverings one hair/dressing modestly? Ok. However Taleban-style oppression here in the west? No thank you.

MMM if there is one MAN alive today to comment on the treatment of women with respect I am confident in saying it is you “i would do her” Hora

Perhaps more of them would uncover if less of us were like you?
Perhaps your oggling is the oppression that leads them to cover up?
and dressing modestly as the Koran calls it

What evidence are you all using to insist theyare forced to wear it BTW?
Hearsay?

Here’s one to throw in.

If a non-muslim woman goes to a strictly muslim country, she is forced to cover up, to prevent her from offending the local community (and could face serious punishment if she failed to do so).

Yet if we asked strict muslim women visting the UK to NOT cover up because it “offends” us, we’d get no end of verbal about how we’re infringing their religious rights (although probably from their husbands/religious leaders rather than the women themselves).

That doesn’t seem anything like fair and equal treatment to me, so I think the french may have the better attitude. It’s just a matter of perspective of whether its “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or “do unto others as they are doing unto you”

Frankly, f… religion. All and any of it.

Mr Edwards …actually depends on the Muslim country but overall a reasonable point

My last bit as off home now

How many of you actually know any Muslim women to ask? (must be no one as their family/men folk never let them out without a male escort and don’t allow them to talk to any one not related to them eh :roll:)

I work in a multicultural area with a very high Muslim population and Muslim schools. I have worked in these schools (some single sex) and have never once had anyone say anything to me about my gender or refuse to work with me including parents. I have asked some about the wearing of it and all of them do this because they had a deep and heart felt believe (wrong mind all religion is nonsense) that they wished to follow the wording of the Koran and obey the word of God.

They would laugh if you asked them if they felt oppressed and point at the scantily clad females who were dressing for men (their words) and say that that was oppression..they might just have a point you know.
I also met a couple at 18 who were married and I though straight away arranged marriage from family etc …turned out they met on Facebook and family was furious as they were to young to marry at 18.

They are not, in so many ways , as un westernised as you all seem to think but they are Muslim.

Like many STW debates I doubt facts will make much difference to this opinion swapping so I will leave it to you all I am sure RB will continue the defence in my absence

What evidence are you all using to insist theyare forced to wear it BTW?

Dunno Junkyard, guess your right. I bet arranged marriages are all consensual as well with no pressure huh.

I find the wearing of Cartier watches deeply offensive.

The wearers are clearly flaunting their opulence – there is absolutely no other reason why anyone should choose to spend several thousands of pounds on a gadget which only tells the time.

The intentions are clear, ie : to state to everyone else “I am superior to you, and you are not worthy”.

This is highly insulting to people like me who are struggling during these difficult times.

Furthermore, Cartier watch wearers themselves are victims. Forced by intense social pressures, they feel duty-bound to invest large amounts of their disposable income on pointless timepieces, when simply looking at the time on their mobile phones (as I do) would be perfectly sufficient.

So I reckon that it’s high time the government stepped in and banned the wearing of Cartier watches. Firstly to protect the sensitivities of people like me. And secondly, to protect the unfortunate wearers of these pointless contraptions.

.

Baseball caps……….. deeply, deeply, offensive. They conjure up an image of the wearer being a total f**kwit who is completely incapable of thinking for himself, and relies solely on information provided in monosyllabic terms by the daily red-top tabloids.

Ban this diabolical attire. And save these wretched creatures from their palpable inability to dress themselves.

Of course now watch all the bearded sandal-wearing ‘free-range’ liberals come crawling out of the woodwork, as they talk about the so-called ‘human rights’ of these individuals to wear what the choose, and how the state ‘doesn’t have the right’ to interfere !

Good point Ernie, but what’s your view on burkas? 😯

but what’s your view on burkas ?

Well I definitely wouldn’t wear one.

So yes of course they should be banned.

I think the police should be given full powers of arrest in these matters.

Probably a good idea if the police were also given the powers to inspect merchandise being sold at clothing retail outlets.

shopkeepers, banks, and petrol stations appear to.

I have to remove my (motorbike) crash helmet to use them …….

I might be wrong (and to be fair I often am :D) but I was under the impression that the burqa isn’t specifically mentioned in the Qu’ran and that it’s a cultural thing particular to Muslims rather than a religous thing as such.

The Qu’ran merely says something along the lines of women should protect their modesty – it’s the culture over the years which has developed the burqa and chador.

all religions hate women….

Well, that’s pretty much wrong as a wrong thing. The three ‘religions of the book’ certainly but even then I know Marian catholics who reject much of the doctrinal teachings of their church and see Mary as a Goddess in her own right who is to be worshipped over and above the male trinity. And that’s just catholicism, ffs.

Banning peoples clothes? Nah,leave it out. If they want to look like dickheads then let ’em.

[img]http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03/burkaburberryAP_450x350.jpg[/img]

whatever.

What evidence are you all using to insist theyare forced to wear it BTW?
Dunno Junkyard, guess your right. I bet arranged marriages are all consensual as well with no pressure huh.

Nice leap and avoidance of the issue
Yes arranged is CONSENSUAL and FORCED in non consensual. Check the law.
Clearly the low rates of divorce in the Liberal west (and the separation rates amongst those who cohabit – which are actually higher) shows our cultural superiority in the marriage/relationship department.

Dobski The Koran asks both genders to dress modestly for men this means being covered from the naval downwards and for women from the head downwards (there is debate as to whether hands and face are ok though

Tell the faithful women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts and not display their beauty except what is apparent of it [hands/face possible interpretation], and to extend their scarf to cover their bosom
Koran, 24:31 (English translation)

Treat it as a sign of faith like fishes on cars , crosses on knecks, no foreskin on Jewish men (surely more oppressive than picking your clothes) etc rather than a sign of the subjugation of women (which religions may also do but that is a different debate.

[doffs cap]Very funny post Mr. Lynch

According to one Muslim woman all that is required is for arms and legs and torso to be covered. There is no requirement for a scarf or headcovering. The burka is a Saudi creation adopted by male dominated societies to subjugate women. I really believe some more aggressive Muslim women in western society have adopted the burka as a ‘**** you’ to westerners, rather like hoodies have been adopted by certain segments of western teen culture. I could be wrong, but that’s certainly the way their attitude comes across to me.

As the burka isn’t a religious thing, we can’t be accused of stirring muslim hatred by banning it.