It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Head-to-toe Muslim veils test tolerance of stridently secular Britain

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Head-to-toe Muslim veils test tolerance of stridently secular Britain


www.iht.com

Increasingly, Muslim women in Britain take their children to school and run errands covered head to toe in flowing black gowns that allow only a slit for their eyes.

Like little else, their appearance has unnerved Britons, testing the limits of tolerance in this stridently secular nation. Many veiled women say they are targets of abuse. At the same time, efforts are growing to place legal curbs on the full Muslim veil, known as the niqab.
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   
This story has me going in both directions. On the one hand, if your religion says "you gotta wear this," then I think that's fine, so long as you are totally free to make the decision about what you want to wear. Of course, given treatment of women in fundamentalist Muslim communities, I think there needs to be a high bar for someone to show "yes, this is my choice, fully and freely." This, I think, may be what distinguishes this from, say, a skullcap. Furthermore, I feel that such clothing should be barred in the face of a compelling governmental interest, such as being able to identify someone.

www.iht.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I think that it is an excellent idea. If a lot of women start going out covered from head to toe, imagine how easy it would be to rob anywhere.
Just saunter into any place (look at me - I'm a devout Moslem woman respecting the Q'ran), do the place over, go somewhere quiet, remove the garb in one quick swish and look! - I am a teenage, anglo-saxon male going about my innocent business. Armed holdup? - what armed holdup?



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Its a strange subject.

I see this every day, and admittedly its disturbing initially, but after a while you get used to it. Remember the intiial shock value of punks/goths/emo's?

My understanding - as backed up in the article, is that the women don't have to wear the niqab, but do so out of choice. The danger comes when you get a distortion of this, and they are told they have to wear one, or that they protest its an integral part of their religion, which it isn't at all. Its a personal choice like a christian choosing to wear a cross, but its not required at all.

What the article does highlight at the end is the fact that despite it being 2007, the superstition behind such things is still very very apparent. I'm not a big fan of superstition of any kind, and in particular the religious type


And the poster who stated that its an open book for criminals is right to some extents, and thats where the whole issue gets into the nitty-gritty of modern day life. There were similar problems with motorcyclists wearing crash-helmets (which are compulsory in the UK) and youths wearing hoodies. This has been addressed by alot of shops/shopping centres who ban the wearing of hoods on their premises, and ask motorcyclists to remove their helmets, so asking someone to take off their veil in such circrumstances is a logical extension and one that I think needs to be adopted.

I've also seen women driving with veils on and as far as I'm concerned there is no way they can have proper peripheral vision when doing so, and there is a safety case for asking them to be removed when in control of a vehicle.

Incendentally, in mainstream schools with uniform policies in the UK the niqab is usually not allowed.

France banned them completely. Whether or not that still stands or is enforced I'm unsure, but the French concerns were over integration into society and I can see their argument. Its very, very hard to integrate when you stick out like a sore thumb as two or three niqab wearers in the middle of a street full of people in more casual western dress.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 05:36 AM
link   
This has nothing to do with religion its all about control. There is nothing in islam compelling woman to wear such clothing it's a dictat from the extremist sects. These sects are totally dominated by men. It does not take a genius to work out that in a (sub)society where women are second class citzens that they do what they are told. Of course they say they aren't...they are told to say that !!!! Any women who speak out or act against such wishes usually end up dead (honour killings) or live their lives in hiding.

Did you know about the London bomber who slipped the country dressed in a niqab....well I never what a suprise!. How could such a devout person offend his fellow muslim women by wearing their clothing. Oh let me think about this for zillionth of second : it has naff all to do with religion. It's all about power and control and until the PC folks wake up to the fact that all religions get hi jacked from time to time by these idiots we will not fix the problem.

Can my girlfriend wear her own beach clothes in a muslim country....yes if she wants to end up in a coffin!

We do not hide our faces in Britain, never have and we should not start. Well done to the muslim headteacher who consulted parents about a school dress code and banned the hiqab from his school. Well done to the house of lords who upheld the decison in face (;-)) of the protest from the brainwashed hiqab wearing shoolgirl. Well done to the muslim in Glasgow who was against seperate muslim schools stating that Glasgow already had enough problems due to the segregation of protestant and catholics. Well observed, very true and braver of him to say so than some brainwashed narriowminded catholics and protestants! Good grief even the christians can't get on here....because they are seperated at childhood.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I'm getting a bit fed up of the way that the British tolerance is just being pushed around like a joke. I thought the Brits were meant to be able to stand up for themselves and know how to tell someone to F. OFF if they didn't like it!

It's fair enough if someone's religion tells them to cover their whole body in veils, but why can't they do it in countries where that is acceptable? Why do they have to come to Britain and impose it on us?

I'll tell you why; it's because they can. Because people know how easy it is to push the Brits around and sh*t on their culture while laughing at them in their own country.

Our society and culture is not structured to work that way, seeing people's faces is a major part of how our culture works. Add to the fact that you aren't allowed to enter most places wearing a balaclava/motorcycle helmet/hood. So why are the rules different for veil-wearers?



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 07:38 AM
link   


I'm getting a bit fed up of the way that the British tolerance is just being pushed around like a joke. I thought the Brits were meant to be able to stand up for themselves and know how to tell someone to F. OFF if they didn't like it!


Oh you still can, tell someone to F.Off, if you do not like it, but expect to me called a racist or being accused of provoking Religious Hatred.

The way I see it is as this, If one rule is made up for one religion then that rule should apply to all religions..

Many a time I have seen, pupils from the christian religion being told they are not allowed to wear crosses or crucifixes to school, because it is not classed as a religous symbol but as a piece of jewlerly. But it is oks for pupils from other religions to wear veils, bangles..... This country has become so PC, that the christain community is being targeted time and time again. And we are that sheeple that we just lay there and take it.

I think it is about high time that Christains in this country took back what is ours and told those who dont like it to F/off ...



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Britain is going to move in the right direction as they have already started to ban them. There are severe safety concerns for all. Individuals wearing them can't see properly when driving because their vision is obstructed.


They make identification hard in fact I would say almost down right impossible.. Then you have the concern that some may use them for cover to rob a store or how about where one male bomber dressed as a girl so as not to look suspicious?

I say ban them completely. If the malls can ban hoodies they can ban the veils same premise safety and identification.

To the best of my knowledge they are already outlawed while driving in the US and when trying to obtain a DL the same applies they are not allowed.



[edit on 6/22/2007 by shots]



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Togetic- It is not in the Qu ran that women have to wear the niquap it is voluntary.

neformore- There is quite a difference between goths/ emos and someone who's face you cannot see.

This should be banned, it is a security risk not just from any muslim extremist but anyone looking to commit a crime. It is very divisive and doesn't allow a muslim women any real contact with other parts of the British society. we are supposed to be intergrating aren't we?? No one seems to be allowed to wear any kind of christian symblogy in the form of jewlelry and this is a christian country, what is the difference to the niqab??

[edit on 22-6-2007 by Peruvianmonk]



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
France banned them completely. Whether or not that still stands or is enforced I'm unsure, but the French concerns were over integration into society and I can see their argument. Its very, very hard to integrate when you stick out like a sore thumb as two or three niqab wearers in the middle of a street full of people in more casual western dress.
I agree with the assimilation argument. Practically speaking, how can you have a country that runs smoothly when there are two or more disjointed cultures? No one can ever come together on anything, especially identity. It makes it nearly impossible to work together because there is no common goal to work towards. The same thing happened in the US before the Civil War, when two cultures, the federalist and anti-federalist, were of such diverse beliefs that the country fractured.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
Togetic- It is not in the Qu ran that women have to wear the niquap it is voluntary.
I never said that it did; obviously there are many Muslim women who don't. But you must agree that such clothing is standard in many fundamentalist communities, and therein lies the issue?



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Yes and we are not a fundementalist country, in my opinion it should be banned full stop.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
Yes and we are not a fundementalist country, in my opinion it should be banned full stop.


As do many people but if you are caught saying it you will be scorned for racism


What the hell can we do eh? Britain isn't run by Brits anymore, it's run by whoever else wants to because we have to be so bloody PC...



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I don't really care who says i'm racist becasue i really am not, and would not even attempt to explain myself. It is a security risk simple as and is not good for community relations. ' The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   
The niquab/abbayah should be banned in western society in public.

1. It is not a requirement by Islamic teachings. Islamic teachings preach modesty in dress. They say nothing about covering up the face.
2. In western society, covering up one's face is very negative. Covering or hiding the face is associated with crime, robbery, assasins, or cloak and dagger type things. Masking the face inspires mistrust and suspicon, thus, women who cover their faces have only themselves or their subculture to blame for negative harrassment recieved as a result.

In the west, we do not cover our faces for any reason unless we are up to no good. We communicate mainly by facial expressions. We identify each other by our faces. In fundementalist Muslim dictatorships, since women are less important, their thoughts, feelings, or communications are meaningless, and this, the instrument of expression, the face, is hidden from public view so the women have no idenitity or voice. In effect, their face and voice in society are covered up and reduced.

I have seen women wear just a headscarf that covers the hair and neck, but leaves the face visible. This is fine, it doesn't bother me, because the important thing is is that I can see their faces, and thus, recognize them or communicate with them. This is modest dress, as they also wear loose, modest clothing as well. Many moderate Muslim communities and countries find simply wearing a headscarf and modest clothing to be in compliances with islamic laws of modest dress. It is only the extremists that want women fully covered, to deny them idenitites and cut them off from the whole world.

There are also practical reasons, for safety and identificaqtion, that require the face be left uncovered.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Oh you still can, tell someone to F.Off, if you do not like it, but expect to me called a racist or being accused of provoking Religious Hatred.


Belonging to a religion is not the same as belonging to a particular race.

Anyone using the above logic should be given a swift kick up the arse.

Too much PCism in the UK.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk

neformore- There is quite a difference between goths/ emos and someone who's face you cannot see.



No...really?


The point I was making was about the shock value of seeing something unusual for the first few times



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Very disturbing ... more proof that they expect us to assimilate to their culture rather then the way it should be.

On a side note, is it true that Islamic and Sikh British police are allowed to wear turbans on duty and that a recent London Metropolitan Police officer refused to shake hands with the commissioner because she was a Muslim female and he a male? I heard this on FOX and was perplexed. Here in the US cops cant even have beards much less wear turbans!



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231
is it true that Islamic and Sikh British police are allowed to wear turbans on duty and that a recent London Metropolitan Police officer refused to shake hands with the commissioner because she was a Muslim female and he a male? I heard this on FOX and was perplexed. Here in the US cops cant even have beards much less wear turbans!


Yes and no. Sikh's wear Turbans, Muslims do not. If FOX said that, it just re-affirms the thought that the network is utter garbage.

Sikh's have been allowed to wear Turbans for decades, if not centuries. They wore them when fighting for us during the Raj and have wore them in the British Army ever since. We do not have a problem with that.

It is a religious symbol.

Niqabs (and nearly all other "Islamic" codes of dress) are not dictated to them by the Koran. They are specifically cultural and can be found in the more hardcore Muslim area's in Saudi etc. Recent converts also seem to think it is "required by Allah", but it is not and they truly do not understand their own religion.

Besides, Indians (Sikhs and Hindu's) tend to assimilate very well into British culture. Muslims, which more often than not are Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Middle eastern, not so well.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Good, good! Something nice, juicy and CONTROVERSIAL! Alright...I do not think burqas should be banned but that's not what I want to discuss at the moment. What I do want to discuss is the rather self-confident declaration of some of those on this thread that "Islam does not require the burqa". But how can you be so sure? How do you know that your interpretation of Islam is the correct one? I am not a Muslim, but as a Christian who belongs to a smaller sect (Churches of Christ), it is my opinion that no one should force their beliefs thru law on others when one does not have definative proof that their beliefs are "correct", whatever that is supposed to mean.




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join