|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bliyaal Member (Idle past 2399 days) Posts: 171 From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada Joined: |
Are you serious or a troll? You wrote 3 lines. You were the one talking about timocracy.
I asked you if this was your idea of morals. I also asked more questions but I notice you ignored that too. Nice honesty that...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bliyaal Member (Idle past 2399 days) Posts: 171 From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada Joined:
|
I am talking of the protection from oppression of a minority of Muslim women in our countries. No, let me remember you what you wrote.
I see it as doing more good for the majority than harm to the oppressed as I see the majority not wanting to be forced to wear what they do not want to wear. You want a majority rule even if it means some harm for a minority. We told you countless times that we already have laws protecting the women you say you want to help but you keep forgetting it like you keep forgetting that most choose to wear the hijab freely. But hey, at least you're honest. We now know who you are and what type of society you want to live in. You can stop pretending you want to protect people except your prefered ones.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
Modulous
Our ideology does not believe in slavery and to allow what is basically a slave mentality and the display of ones subjugation to exist in our free land should not be allowed. RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greatest I am Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 1676 Joined: |
"but you keep forgetting it like you keep forgetting that most choose to wear the hijab freely."
Un-evidenced. RegardsDL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bliyaal Member (Idle past 2399 days) Posts: 171 From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada Joined: |
You mean like you didn't post evidence that they're all oppressed by their husbands?
Until then, they made the choice freely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Is it really not possible to have a grown up discussion about this? Is it really necessary to caricature both sides of this argument and not accept that there really are oppressive reasons why women wear full face and body coverings and that there are also real issues of freedom at stake in banning them?
Without googling I know that there are at least two modern, western, liberal democracies that have banned these clothes for good reason and that appeals on human rights grounds in the European court have failed. It is not necessarily racist to argue for a ban, but there is also real difficulty balancing this against personal freedom. Given the clmate and the known cultural oppression behind at least some of those that wear these things - as evidenced when it was made illegal to wear them - it seems to me that the balance is in favour of a ban. But I would not personally argue for it - the numbers affected by it in our countries is too small to matter. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You shop that you have not done your own research. Quite lazy of you. Unlike those who's intellectual honesty is lacking, like yourself, I do not enter discussions unprepared. Anyone even passingly familiar with Muslim modesty requirements would have cited this. Sura 24:31 And no, you do not get to interpret it for anybody. Devout Muslim women get to interpret it for themselves. Discussion by YouTube opinions is less than trustworthy or conscientious but since your weak mind wants to play that stupid-assed little game I'll oblige. https://youtu.be/t1x5Zu18f7Uhttps://youtu.be/0jWSDyJiIXg https://youtu.be/IXEenH4AnmU https://youtu.be/Y330YukN1b0 https://youtu.be/uSFgHf8qdXo Now tell them why you want this government to abuse their rights. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
YOU are the one who continually ignores what everybody is saying - i.e that YOU are the one who wants to oppress women. You ignored my use of the word oppressed. You have been shown that some women DO wear the hijab voluntarily. Why do you want to prevent them? Stop evading the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
We're not just talking about "full face and body coverings" here. There may be viable reasons for banning full face and body coverings in some circumstances. ... there really are oppressive reasons why women wear full face and body coverings.... But the argument in this thread includes the hijab. If you can come up with a reason for banning the hijab, beyond racism, feel free to roll it out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
It strikes me that the hijab is a rather lovely thing. It's supposed to protect the modesty of a female by hiding her hair, neck and ears. I can only say that they have been misled if they think it achieves that.
As I said earlier, it was quite wrong of the female judge in Canada to refuse hearing the woman wearing the head scarf. Banning it would be absurd. But the burka, nikab and hijab can all be symbols of oppression and ways of subjugating women - we need to recognise that as a simple fact and stop pretending that it is only the woman's choice.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
So we could have ended slavery by banning chains?
But the burka, nikab and hijab can all be symbols of oppression and ways of subjugating women... Tangle writes:
Nobody is pretending any such thing. The point is that if ANY women make the choice, we can not legitimately prevent them. If there is ANY non-oppressive use for chains, we can not legitimately ban them. And banning them wouldn't eliminate the oppression anyway.
... we need to recognise that as a simple fact and stop pretending that it is only the woman's choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Ringo writes: So we could have ended slavery by banning chains? Absurd
Nobody is pretending any such thing. Sure had me fooled.
The point is that if ANY women make the choice, we can not legitimately prevent them. No, that's not the point. They have been banned legitimatey in at least two modern western democracies and those bans have been tested in the European Court of Human Rights.
If there is ANY non-oppressive use for chains, we can not legitimately ban them. And banning them wouldn't eliminate the oppression anyway. Demonstrably wrong. In those countries where they have been banned it has been for several reasons....
The European judges decided otherwise, declaring that the preservation of a certain idea of "living together" was the "legitimate aim" of the French authorities......Aside from questions of security and equality, she added: "It's about social communication, the right to interact with someone by looking them in the face and about not disappearing under a piece of clothing." The French and Belgian laws were aimed at "helping everyone to integrate". Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
That's what I've been saying - the idea of ending oppression by banning the symbols of oppression is absurd.
ringo writes:
Absurd So we could have ended slavery by banning chains? Tangle writes:
I can do that three times before breakfast.
Sure had me fooled. Tangle writes:
I have said that a ban may be legitimate in some circumstances. That does not legitimize a blanket ban.
They have been banned legitimatey in at least two modern western democracies and those bans have been tested in the European Court of Human Rights. "It's about social communication, the right to interact with someone by looking them in the face and about not disappearing under a piece of clothing." The French and Belgian laws were aimed at "helping everyone to integrate".
What an idiotic thing to say. You can't integrate people by making them uncomfortable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Phat writes: That does not legitimize a blanket ban. Yes it does. As demonstrated.
You can't integrate people by making them uncomfortable.
Rather, you can't integrate people by allowing them isolate themselves - which is the purpose of these clothings. Those countries took the view that if Muslims they wish to live in them, they need to leave their extreme religious and cultural practices and integrate. The full body covering is a symbol of non-integration with the prevalent culture.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Don't confuse "legal" with "legitimate".
ringo writes:
Yes it does. As demonstrated. That does not legitimize a blanket ban. Tangle writes:
There's nothing "extreme" about a hijab.
Those countries took the view that if Muslims they wish to live in them, they need to leave their extreme religious and cultural practices and integrate. Tangle writes:
I don't know if you're deliberately trying to bait and switch.... The full body covering is a symbol of non-integration with the prevalent culture. The topic covers the hijab - it's right there in the title - as well as "full body covering". If you can understand the difference, please make that clear. If you think extending a "full body covering" ban to headscarves is sensible, please make that clear too. And please make clear how far you think it is "legitimate" to force immigrants to emulate their host culture. Should turbans be banned? Should long skirts be banned? Should the bindi be banned? Should speaking Hindi or Urdu in public be banned? Just how far are you willing to go to "integrate" newcomers?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024