Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Men to be banned from Muslim Art Exhibition - IN NEW ZEALAND!!!

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   

So basically, an artist from the Middle East intends to show an exhibition in New Zealand where Muslim women without veils are preparing for a wedding.

The Qatari writer and film-maker Sophia Al-Maria has consequently requested, as one of the exhibitions' conditions, that men be banned from her show - but it is not exactly clear why other than

that images should be treated as privileged and private, for women's eyes only.
and again another article says

Al-Maria asked for the video to be viewed only by women, as it was filmed in a female-only area of the home.

Sophia Al-Maria

Is it presumably because it is against Islamic ideology regarding men looking upon women "lustfully" or with a sexual desire?

If you are in New Zealand as a visitor (or citizen) I presumed you had to abide by their laws and customs - seems I am wrong - and it has drawn sharp criticism across the board over there. Why is she requesting to show it in a non-Islamic country and then insisting that country depart from its traditional customs of equality?

I would be interested to get the take on this from our Muslim friends here on ATS and well as our Kiwi cousins - does this seem reasonable and justified or is it going over the top - it just seems a tad discriminatory to me?

Ninemsn.com.au

stuff.co.nz......




posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublimecraft
Is it presumably because it is against Islamic ideology regarding men looking upon women "lustfully" or with a sexual desire?


The problem with Islam is that it doesn't do integration.

Everywhere it migrates to it expects non-Muslims to follow its rules in the interests of not offending Muslims. Yet Islam has little hesitation in offending member of its host nation.

For instance, in an Australian poll (sorry I don't have a NZ one)


Support for banning burqa

64% for a ban

36% against a ban

www.theage.com.au...


Will Muslims respect the wishes of the majority and stop wearing the burqa?

Don't hold your breath...


edit on 27-8-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 





The problem with Islam is that it doesn't do integration. Everywhere it migrates to it expects non-Muslims to follow its rules in the interests of not offending Muslims.


Thats the question isn't it, how does a tolerant system tolerate intolerance.

We expound freedom of religion and expression here in the US, yet many of the Islamic practices seem opposed to such ideals.

Take for example of such a request was made at an art exhibit here in the US it would be considered Discrimination plain and simple.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Indeed - the same thing has happened here in Australia. There are pockets of Islamic communities in various cities where the average Aussie feels most unwelcome.

We all remember the Cronulla riots in 2005 in Sydney where some Lebanese lads took offence to the Aussie girls in bikinis on the beach - had it not been for the Bra Boys (Maroubra surf gang) things would have gotten very very ugly.

edit on 27-8-2012 by Sublimecraft because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublimecraft
 


G,day. why am i not surprised. hope her chooks turn into emu's and kick her dunny down. short and sweet. better duck now. me bethinks, inncooooomming.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
I must agree with you on this, it is wrong to go somewhere else and expect
them to bend to your customs, she could simply show it somewhere that
it would be be that way because thats what they believe, on the other hand
it does say request and not demand so maybe that means something, i have
no issue when one requests something all i ask is dont get upset if the
request is denied.

i am from the U.S. but i grew up in another country, when we lived there
we did not expect the people there to cater to our customs, there were
many who respected the fact that we were different but also we respected
that we were visitors in their nation, we did not try to speak english to everyone
we learned the language and spoke that, this could be taken the same way,
one must share culture not just come in and try to change it.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
Thats the question isn't it, how does a tolerant system tolerate intolerance.

We expound freedom of religion and expression here in the US, yet many of the Islamic practices seem opposed to such ideals.

Take for example of such a request was made at an art exhibit here in the US it would be considered Discrimination plain and simple.


Luckily, the vast majority of the Western population have woken up to the danger of respecting Islamic intolerance in the interests of tolerance, as is evidenced in the comments sections of both left and right Western newspapers.

As individuals, Muslims can display the most admirable traits and be a credit to their host nation.

As a group however, Muslims are a force working against hard won Western freedoms.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by bloodreviara
 


That seems like the respectful thing to do - acclimatise to your environment. Forcing your environment to acclimatise to you just doesn't work - the backlash of the populace is always overwhelming yet it is "tried on" time and time again by this entity it seems.

As one poster has stated - the western nations, to a large extent, are starting to wake up to this situation.

Thanks for your comments.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   
This in no way supprises me. Since the word Father has been removed from NHS guide books here in sunny Scotland, the reason being it apparently caused offence to one same sex couple!!!!! The world has gone PC crazy. Soon it will be a crime to be considered normal.

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE PLANET STUPID, AKA EARTH!
edit on 27-8-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   
From the OP's first link:

Nicholai Anderson, a senior associate at the law firm Chen Palmer, told AAP that banning men would be unlawful discrimination by the museum or the people displaying the work.

It was unlawful under the Human Rights Act and the Bill of Rights Act.

He said people had rights to their own religious beliefs "but at the same time under the laws of New Zealand to not admit someone because of the sex they are is unlawful".


Assuming that he knows the law, why is this even being discussed? It seems like one letter explaining the laws should end the whole discussion. I don't understand other countries (I don't even understand my own) but what is the thinking here? Don't they just say "Our laws don't allow us to abide by your conditions?" Help!



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublimecraft
 


thank you for the thread, and i agree with you on the fact that these groups
tend to want to bend the world to their view point, i dont agree with that
of course as its always going to cause problems when they choose that
road.

i also agree with the poster above who stated that its as simple as following
the laws of your country if you happen to have equality laws, if i lived
there, as a man, i would be upset by the fact i was being refused entry
into an art exhibit simply because of my gender, while i respect her right
to practice her religion i do not respect the choice to force it onto anyone else.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Wherever Muslims go, its the Muslim way or its the highway. They try to change everyone's thinking to their own intolerant thought processes.
I can remember a few years ago when a swimming pool in Dandenong Victoria began to ban Men between certain hours so that Muslim women could go have a swim, the other strange one is that many schools here in Melbourne don't celebrate Christmas so as not to offend the Muslim students.
We have welcomed these people into our communities and are bending over backwards to support their right to their religion, if the tables were turned can you imagine in a Muslim country having the same rights under their countries law.
Not a chance, they'd probably stone us for our presumption.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublimecraft
 


The following was Winston Churchill's take on Islam and how it treats its women.


The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.

It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

-Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).


It is true that Islam tends to view women as the property of men. A property to be jealously guarded against other men.

Muhammad, according to the Hadith, punched his favourite wife for leaving the house without his permission.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I will freely admit that the Islamic "movement" does concern me a great deal. I hesitate to call it a religion simply because actions speak louder than words. In saying that the other monotheistic faiths are no angels either but they have acknowledged their previous shortcomings regarding bloodshed and moved towards a secular way of life.

If we leave it entirely to governments to deal with I fear that this movement will eventually trample all over us - here in Australia the immigration debate is a key election issue and the silent majority are acutely aware of this situation.

We should not allow any further incursions into our way of life - by all means come over here if we have the facilities to accommodate however it must be made clear that our tolerance for "intolerance of our way of life" has limits - Cronulla was a wake up call.
edit on 27-8-2012 by Sublimecraft because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Take for example of such a request was made at an art exhibit here in the US it would be considered Discrimination plain and simple.


Interesting question whether it would be or not. It is entriely possible that the women in the film agreed to the filming on the condition that it not be exhibited to men. Since the film would not exist except that it not be shown to men, it is difficult to argue that my rights as a man include watching the film.

Regardless of why they thought that was a good idea, the women do own their likeness and the right to exhibit their likeness for money (for example, a museum admission charge). If the film maker does not own the right to exhibit the film to men, then she cannot sell it to the museum.

A museum might decide not to show the film under those conditions. However, it is not at all clear that they couldn't in the United States. If there was a problem, it would most likely be under some state or local public accommodations law, or perhaps something the museum agreed to in order to be a government grant recipient or contractor. These things vary too widely across the country to generalize. Even then, the United States Constitution protects the free exercise of religion. If the women's property rights (in their own likenesses) do not prevail, then their religious preference just might.

What makes some cases seem tricky is that what many of us want is to live in a world where people don't base their personal choices on the tastes of a Seventh Century warlord with a messiah complex. Unfortunately, just at the moment, a billion people do base their choices on just that.

I am a libertarian - I favor people doing what they want, so long as its peaceful, doesn't deprive others of their rights, and regardless of why they want to do what they want to do. If these women don't want me looking at them, meh.

Bigger picture: let the free world see what a Shari'a world would be like. So, some guys don't see some Qatari women plan a wedding, but everybody receives a practical, and relatively painless, example of what a world where every aspect of life is vetted by religious police wouild be like. That's political theater. Bring it on.
edit on 27-8-2012 by eight bits because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
"Muhammad, according to the Hadith, punched his favourite wife for leaving the house without his permission."

If this is the case that the holy profit(Peace be upon him) punched his "favourite" wife, then thats there faith in a nut shell. Its 2012 religious Muslims either grow your religion to meet the required social standards of todays world or leave our respective nations peacefully and quietly please!

We have neither the time nor the inclination to accommodate your arcanic non tolerance of other races and cultures!
edit on 27-8-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join