Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Poll shows majority of British people support burqa ban

Scroll to see replies

Original post by ajay1998

I would go as far as to say to say people should be allowed to even wear the shirt you've shown.

people should be free to wear what they like..... I agree

Also, since nuns are as you say professionals they should be allowed to wear their dress but Muslim women can't wear their dress? That sounds like weak reasoning to me.

Not weak reasoning just showing they are not comparable one is a work uniform (I'm sure some would love if it they were like nuns as nuns are celibate) the other is a fashion choice.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 101

user 42005

Original post by dexterminate

The burqa is not a symbol of oppression. It is similar to the nun’s outfit, or the Pope’s. Women wear it BECAUSE they choose to wear it. Many of my acquaintances choose not to wear a hijab, and their parents respect that. The burqa is not a symbol of oppression and it never will be unless society chooses to label it as one.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Tell that to those who are forced by their husbands to cover up, under threat of not leaving the house. As I have already identified in the very post you are quoting, yes there are some women who have the choice. Many don't. One anecdote about someone you know does not change the fact that every day women are forced to cover themselves, if not by the husband then certainly by the religious doctrine. Or did you think women in Arab countries just enjoy wearing the same, head-to-toe outfit every day? If they have no choice then they are oppressed... and I would oppose any religion that tries to enforce that upon people. But again, like I said, my only reservations with banning it are that it would have an impact on the few who do truly choose to wear it.

Reply 102

ajay1998

Original post by BaconandSauce

I take it as most are all OK with people wearing what they like the above is OK yes......

Yeah sure, there's no reason for it to be banned, people being offended by it isn't a valid reason.

Reply 103

BaconandSauce

Original post by ajay1998

Yeah sure, there's no reason for it to be banned, people being offended by it isn't a valid reason.

completely agree.

Reply 104

ajay1998

Original post by BaconandSauce

people should be free to wear what they like..... I agree

Not weak reasoning just showing they are not comparable one is a work uniform (I'm sure some would love if it they were like nuns as nuns are celibate) the other is a fashion choice.

Well they're comparable in the sense they pretty cover nearly all of a woman's body, the purpose it's worn for is a bit arbitary.

Reply 105

BaconandSauce

Original post by ajay1998

Well they're comparable in the sense they pretty cover nearly all of a woman's body, the purpose it's worn for is a bit arbitary.

I think they would argue the purpose is VERY import

But one is a work uniform one is a fashion choice so no they are not comparable or equal in this respect

comparable would be balaclava but that's about it (even a helmet has a safety function)

Reply 106

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by 0to100

Plus it makes me feel very uncomfortable.

Grow a spine, then. Nothing's going to be banned because it makes you uncomfortable.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 107

BaconandSauce

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

Grow a spine, then. Nothing's going to be banned because it makes you uncomfortable.

so you have no issues with this then?

Reply 108

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by BaconandSauce

so you have no issues with this then?
x

I have some pretty serious issues with it, but I wouldn't have it banned on account of those issues.

Reply 109

BaconandSauce

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

I have some pretty serious issues with it, but I wouldn't have it banned on account of those issues.

The answer I was looking for. Thank you.

Reply 110

richpanda

The head scarf- fine. Old women often wear the equivalent thing on hot summer's days. But when I see a woman (well, presumably a woman but I can't be sure) and she's just covered in black and you can't see any of her, that makes me uncomfortable.

Reply 111

scrotgrot

Original post by BaconandSauce

so you have no issues with this then?

That incites and celebrates violence. Furthermore it does so against an ethnic group for their ethnicity, not their prior actions or even beliefs (because the crosshair is trained on the baby). Anyone wearing this T-shirt in public should be prosecuted under the Public Order Act.

A burqa is nothing like this T-shirt. Explain why you think it is comparable?

Reply 112

scrotgrot

Original post by BaconandSauce

I take it as most are all OK with people wearing what they like the above is OK yes......

Yes that is fine

Reply 113

BaconandSauce

Original post by scrotgrot

Oh so people shouldn't be free to wear what they like then

Also it doesn't incite (the women is carrying an AK47 so it's defensive) and while crass this shouldn't matter.

And don't play the race card 2 of the women I know out of the few who do wear this are white.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 114

QE2

While I fundamentally disagree with the princple of the burqa/niqab, I would not support a general ban on religiously inspired face covering. I think a good compromise would be to require their removal in any situation where it is required to remove a balaclava, full-face helmet, etc. No one can complain of Islamophobia or special priviledge then.

Reply 115

QE2

Original post by dexterminate

The burqa is not a symbol of oppression. It is similar to the nun’s outfit, or the Pope’s.

No it isn't. The nun's habit is a uniform, worn by people doing a particular job. No Christian who hasn't taken orders wears a nun's habit.

Women wear it BECAUSE they choose to wear it. Many of my acquaintances choose not to wear a hijab, and their parents respect that. The burqa is not a symbol of oppression and it never will be unless society chooses to label it as one.

It is entirely disingenuous or fallacious to claim that there is no coercion involved in wearing the hijab.
Most Muslimahs who "choose" to wear it do so because they believe that they are commanded to do so by Allah, that it is an integral part of their faith.
If you genuinely believe in the existence of Allah, and that your eternal soul depends on following his orders correctly, then if you think he wants you to cover your head, you have no choice.

Then of course, we have the situation where women are required to wear it, whether by family, community or state, regardless of their personal belief.

Finally, there are bound to be some who wear it as a fashion item, or a badge of cultural identity, without any religious implications. These are the only ones who genuinely, freely "choose" to wear it.

Reply 116

QE2

Original post by ShariYeah!

With all due respect kuffar live like cattle. Total western hypocrisy because no sooner does a sister remove her veil the very same gora oiks are there to ridicule womens weight/appearance. Freedom and tolerance my arse, its the burqa which is the true sisterhood as a woman will be valued on her actions not on her appearance.

That's right. Because women have only ever acheived anything by using their looks.

It's ironic that by using this argument, you are actually belittling the acheivements of women who did not cover themselves.

And as you raised the point, could you list the important achievements of those women being valued only on their actions because they refuse to show their face or body shape? There should be more than those who shamelessly expose themselves to get on in life, because as they are relying on their looks, their lack of ability would soon be found out.
Shall we make a list? I'll do one for the women who are "valued by appearance", you do one for the women "valued on her actions".

Let's start with scientists who have made advances in their field.
Then authors, writers and journalists.
Followed by artists, musicians and actors.
And finally politicians, executives and legislators.

If your argument is valid, your list should be much longer than mine.
Off you go.

Reply 117

scrotgrot

Original post by BaconandSauce

Oh so people shouldn't be free to wear what they like then

No, of course they shouldn't. Not if it incites violence, particularly between ethnic, religious or political groups.

Also it doesn't incite (the women is carrying an AK47 so it's defensive) and while crass this shouldn't matter.

And don't play the race card 2 of the women I know out of the few who do wear this are white.

Religious then, falls under Public Order Act 2006 in the UK and quite right too.

You have a really vile outlook.

Reply 118

BaconandSauce

Original post by scrotgrot

You have a really vile outlook.

I'm not the one making up spurious reasons up to prevent people wearing what they like

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 119

QE2

Original post by ajay1998

Well they're comparable in the sense they pretty cover nearly all of a woman's body, the purpose it's worn for is a bit arbitary.

Also worth bearing in mind that the full habit is essentially ceremonial wear, worn during services, religious duties, etc. Most of the time, many nuns wear regular clothes.
Here is a picture of some nuns.