Turn on thread page Beta

UKIP want to ban the Niqaab and Burkha:Is this an example of Islamophobia? watch

    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    If people can disguise their faces in location x, people should be allowed to wear a Burkha at location x.
    If people are not permitted to disguise their face in location y, people should not be allowed to wear a Burkha at location y.

    Simple as that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by near_comatose)
    No, but I can pretty much guarantee you'd be told to take your hood down inside a shopping centre, museum, any public place (except outside obv.) and someone wearing a burkah wouldn't, because we couldn't offend someone's religion (read: a muslims religion)

    It's intimidating because you have no way to identify what's under it, so in the back of my mind I'd be thinking they could do a lot of things and get away with it. Also, I think you'll find I didn't mention anything being outlawed so why you're asking me that question, I don't know.
    Well the whole point is the thread is about outlawing the Burkha. I don't get it, living in London I see so many harmless people wearing them around the place looking after children, travelling to work and just having normal lives in which they are contributing to British society. You take the Burkha away, and depending on how strictly religious they are they may not even be able to leave the house, there's no need for it. I don't particularly go checking under everyone's hats as I go past in case they are hiding something either, I don't see what the problem is.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loki276)
    you have just demonstrate what an arrogant **** you are with those pictures and comments
    Thanks:gthumb: :toofunny:
    It's true though. At least people who dress up as Darth Vader only do it for a bit of a laugh or for fancy dress. Women who believe in some "god" called Allan (who nobody has ever seen,) do it ALL THE TIME!!!

    It's not me that's deluded, it's them!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MaceyThe)
    No, the burka shouldn't be banned. People should be educated as to what it stands for, along with the whole cranky religion, and then it would be laughed and ridiculed out of existence.
    These women probably know more about the burqa and what it stands for than you tbh. Also, there is no one complete answer as to what the burqa represents, for a Muslim women it usually means something completely different for them than if a random English bloke saw it.

    For comparison though, a nice picture I made:
    So, you don't want the Darth Vader outfit to be banned but the burqa one instead. Makes perfect sense :sarcasm:

    On a personal level though....Last time I flew abroad, there was a Muslim women in a burka on the row behind me. At meal time, I was curious as to how she ate, and turned round to take a peak. She'd removed her burka and was munching on some food, but had the dirtiest, mustache and hairy face I've ever seen on a woman.:eek:

    For people like that, please, continue to wear the burka.
    So you want the burqa only for "ugly" women and better looking should show off their hair and face. Why would any woman base their dress code on what titillates/disgusts a random guy? I find it unsightly when obese women wear clothes which are clearly too small/tight for them so maybe we should force them to wear only clothes in their size?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gingergooner)
    You take the Burkha away, and depending on how strictly religious they are they may not even be able to leave the house, there's no need for it.
    You're quite right, there's no need for it; no mention of burkhas in the Qur'an or elsewhere.
    What you're written above is all the more reason why this ideology and practice needs to be strongly challenged in Britain and consigned to history asap.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gingergooner)
    Well the whole point is the thread is about outlawing the Burkha. I don't get it, living in London I see so many harmless people wearing them around the place looking after children, travelling to work and just having normal lives in which they are contributing to British society. You take the Burkha away, and depending on how strictly religious they are they may not even be able to leave the house, there's no need for it. I don't particularly go checking under everyone's hats as I go past in case they are hiding something either, I don't see what the problem is.
    Way to ignore nearly everything mentioned in my post
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MaceyThe)
    You're quite right, there's no need for it; no mention of burkhas in the Qur'an or elsewhere.
    What you're written above is all the more reason why this ideology and practice needs to be strongly challenged in Britain and consigned to history asap.
    Religion isn't what is written in the book, it is people's interpretation of what is written. The Qur'an states that modesty is of utmost importance, and if Muslim women believe that in order to show this modesty and honour their religion they must wear a Burkha, then it would be injust not to allow them to do so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chem555)
    Some of you women should cover up, I seen the sight on friday night, dressed like sluts, then get drunk then cry rape.

    The misogyny, arrogance and cultural undertones of this statement are vile.

    To Aeolus and Crazy Lemon your arguments in favour of race/religion are coherent and liberal. Yet you let statements like this pass without censor.

    Where is your sense of liberal outrage here?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gingergooner)
    Religion isn't what is written in the book, it is people's interpretation of what is written.
    Quite, so judging from all the evidence, it would be wrong to class Islam as a tolerant "religion of peace?"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MaceyThe)
    Quite, so judging from all the evidence, it would be wrong to class Islam as a tolerant "religion of peace?"
    Once again, interpretation. The Qur'an states that violence should be used as a last resort if followers of the religion are threatened as a protective measure.
    "Warfare is an awesome evil" (2:217), but sometimes it is necessary to fight in order to bring the kind of persecution suffered by the Muslims to an end [2:217] or to preserve decent values [22:40]. But Muslims may never initiate hostilities, and aggression is forbidden by God [2:190]
    Extremism should be banned, because it often assumes that people should be attacked purely for not believing in Islam, rather than for persecuting those who do.

    EDIT: Also, should Christianity be banned in Northern Ireland purely because of sectarian violence? Clearly not, extremists on either side should be punished.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I see know reason why that full veil should be worn anyway this this country, its not a legal requirement as it is in some Islamic states.

    I have nothing against it (much-only security reasons as i've mentioned elsewhere), just can't see the logic.

    All right, for ceremonious occasions may be, but not for day to day life, it's plain daft!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Media student)
    The equality of women in society is to give them the CHOICE to wear what they want
    But for the most point it isn't a choice, it is something forced upon them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Islamophobia = 'fear of Islam'.

    It's not a negative term, it's a pretty well-justified concern!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe banning it will force them to integrate more.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EssexDan86)
    Islamophobia = 'fear of Islam'.

    It's not a negative term, it's a pretty well-justified concern!
    :facepalm2:
    Islamophobia is a neologism that refers to prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJkG.1)
    But if the ban causes the rights of so many women who choose to wear the burkha to be infringed, and to leave them unable to leave their home without significantly changing the way they dress... not to mention the social stigma attached to a legal ban, you couldn't care less?

    And just to play devil's advocate to try and explain how your views are illogical: Many girls feel pressured into wearing miniskirts and the likes to fit in with their peers, this would be sexual oppression under pressure so if your argument holds, you would want miniskirts to be banned too, because "if their legality justifies the oppression of even one woman, then I cannot support it", so what do you say?

    Somehow I have the feeling you don't support the latter miniskirt ban. :rolleyes:
    You have something of a point - sexuality can be oppression in both repression and enforced expression. However, you have drawn a false parallel. With the Burkha, the overt and primary purpose is one of repression i.e. it exists primarily as a cultural instrument based on a perceived gender equality. The same is not true for a mini-skirt. It may be a focus for enforced sexualization through peer pressure, but this was not the reason it was made.

    So, in allowing the Burkha to remain legal we also implicitly condone the principle behind it, a principle that allows for repression. There is no such principle behind the mini-skirt.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkWhite)
    I don't mind providing the following conditions are kept to:

    * Such dress items are removed when taking photographs for photo identification.
    * Such dress items are removed when requested by officials inspecting photo identification.
    * Officials have this in their job description to avoid being abused by persons under inspection.

    Apart from that, I couldn't care less; it's their choice to wear them, and although it's not something I'd like to see on my girlfriend, they are worn by choice.
    Now these are some sensible conditions put forward. This is not to support or refute your argument, but the women shouldn't be having a problem removing it to show their faces because Islam quite clearly states that the faces can be left open. So the veil is really a matter of personal preference, as some women wish to go beyond the headscarf.

    Only if the French politicians thought like you :rolleyes:

    A friend recently told me that whenever he sees a beautiful woman wearing the headscarf, he finds it difficult to think of her in a perverted manner and he finds it impossible to do so when the woman is wearing a veil. This is a bitter truth but there seems to be general consensus that many punks out there think dirty about women more often than i previously thought! Plus I was watching a video of this recent convert named Nicole Queen and she said that the veil and/or headscarf prevents men from looking at her in a disrespectful manner.

    I thought about and it made sense to me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Finding the balance is purely a subjective matter. Such bans would contradict with the values of freedom and democracy in Europe, but one might ask why shouldn't we be allowed to walk naked in the streets?

    Being half naked is alright, but naked isn't. Wearing clothes is decent, but the moment you want to cover your face its illegal? Such rules are bound to trigger allegations of double standards, because they clearly are!

    Although many Muslims out there may not agree and support free speech, democracy etc. etc. if Europe really wishes to impose its values of freedom and democracy upon Muslims living in their countries, it must consistently apply them. In trying to maintain consistency in implementing them everywhere is bound to create some loopholes, some manipulation, but that doesn't justify the cancellation of the right.

    The idea of free speech (I believe) is to be able to speak up, disable the previous muscled coverups made by powerful people. I do not think that free speech was initiated to enable us to ridicule, insult and humiliate others. The Danish cartoons of Prophet Muhammad for example, perhaps fit into the definition in legal terms, but many would agree it was against the spirit of free speech. That does not mean every citizen has to surrender this right because of the actions of a few cartoonists, does it? I'm sure even those who overreacted to the cartoons would also agree to this.

    Now, one might also say that democracy is by the people for the people bla bla bla. In that case should we have a referendum on this issue too? Well, assuming most of the French people will not view this issue from the typical Muslim point of view, a referendum is likely to bring about a ban on this. Does it make the outcome a truly democratic solution, given how Muslims are a minority and are unable to realise their rights simply because they are outnumbered by non-Muslims? Does this uphold the principles of equality? Does't the ban promote faith based discimination?

    Such impediments will come up from time to time through man made laws, loopholes will continue to surface. Different laws will have conflicting objectives within themselves...what to do. If you really care about your right to do this, right to do that, then it must be applied equally for all, otherwise for none.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oculist)
    You have something of a point - sexuality can be oppression in both repression and enforced expression. However, you have drawn a false parallel. With the Burkha, the overt and primary purpose is one of repression i.e. it exists primarily as a cultural instrument based on a perceived gender equality. The same is not true for a mini-skirt. It may be a focus for enforced sexualization through peer pressure, but this was not the reason it was made.

    So, in allowing the Burkha to remain legal we also implicitly condone the principle behind it, a principle that allows for repression. There is no such principle behind the mini-skirt.
    who gives you the right to say that? Yes, Free speech does, but that is one serious assumption you're making. You can say whatever you want to, but in an argument you can't rewrite history in your own form and just randomly state a 'fact' without any evidence. Who told you it came into place to repress women? Evidence?

    I could say the mini-skirt was made by pimps for the first time to make prostitutes look more appealing to their customers..but thats a false assumption that I would be making. Even if it were true, that wouldn't give me a good enough reason to ban it or consider the women who wear it prostitutes.

    Your conclusion is not only false but very hypocritical. You have not only incorrectly assumed the burkha was initiated to repress women, but your argument for not banning mini-skirts is rendered an invalid one in the context of the discussion that took place initially between you and djkg.1
    Let us also not forget that unlike you, most people consider it a security concern and are not fighting for women's rights like you by snatching away their right to wear the burkha :teehee:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    At the end of the daythe niqaab gives freedom to women, liberating them from their desires and doing their duty to Almighty God, no matter how many times you quote this and reply to this, it wont change anything. End Quote

    and one more thing, nowadays you cant tell the difference between normal women and prostitutes because they dress the same,
    so who is screwed now?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 19, 2010
The home of Results and Clearing

2,867

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.