|
|
Post by equivocal on Oct 3, 2024 8:12:31 GMT
Sorry for being so slow. It's not self-evident to me. The sad case you highlighted shows why illiberalism should not be tolerated. If you take away the choice of wearing religious dress, you will be acting illiberally, the very thing that was responsible for that poor girl/woman's death. Aren’t Muslim women treated as second class? Isn't the requirement for religious clothing the epitome of coercive behaviour? I think it's a difficult issue. The treatment of Muslims in, say, France and the Netherlands has, in my opinion, been broadly illiberal in the way those countries have 'forced' a form of integration. I think that illiberal treatment resulted in increasingly violent reactions which has fed into equally illiberal Far Right narratives and enabled the rise of people like LePen and Wilders.
I think the risk of a blanket ban in this country runs the risk of having the same effect. I also think you are right and the clothing is a symbol of the oppression of Muslim women, but I think the answer is probably persuasive acculturation rather than blunt force legislation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Oct 3, 2024 8:19:00 GMT
Where is the thief? He confessed right at the end and is in heaven Maybe Hitler is in heaven because he confessed right at the end for all we know It's pretty unlikely. Supposing he didn't. Where is he? |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Oct 3, 2024 8:23:29 GMT
Yes, if they're forced to wear it against their will. No, if they freely choose to wear it.
The nun is the Christian equivalent of the burka-wearing Muslim woman. The nun wears a coif to hide her hair, just as the Muslim woman wears a hajib to hide hers. The nun wears a habit to hide the outline of her body, just as some Muslim woman wear a burka to hide theirs. Frankly, they both look ridiculous. But if they freely choose to wear those items, that's their business. By the way, where do you want to stop? Should Christians be prevented from wearing crucifixes on chains? Is that where we're headed?
To answer both in bold,to the first the difficulty is determining those coerced which is why coercive behaviour is often hard to prove if those forced down that route are too frightened to say so. To the second the symbolism depends on how it is used,for instance is it wrong you cannot openly use the swastika in Germany? So, society should ban certain forms of dress because it is possible some people will be forced to wear them? Is that fair to the majority of burka wearers, who wish to wear them? It is not wrong to ban swastikas in Germany. I fail to see the parallels between the burka/nun's habit and the swastika. |
|
|
|
Post by foldart on Oct 3, 2024 8:28:04 GMT
To answer both in bold,to the first the difficulty is determining those coerced which is why coercive behaviour is often hard to prove if those forced down that route are too frightened to say so. To the second the symbolism depends on how it is used,for instance is it wrong you cannot openly use the swastika in Germany? So, society should ban certain forms of dress because it is possible some people will be forced to wear them? Is that fair to the majority of burka wearers, who wish to wear them? It is not wrong to ban swastikas in Germany. I fail to see the parallels between the burka/nun's habit and the swastika. That’s because you haven’t read and understood my answer which was in two parts. I made no comparison between the dress the comparison was made to the crucifix. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Oct 3, 2024 8:32:42 GMT
So, society should ban certain forms of dress because it is possible some people will be forced to wear them? Is that fair to the majority of burka wearers, who wish to wear them? It is not wrong to ban swastikas in Germany. I fail to see the parallels between the burka/nun's habit and the swastika. That’s because you haven’t read and understood my answer which was in two parts. I made no comparison between the dress the comparison was made to the crucifix. But you want to see the burka banned, right? Do you also want to the nun's habit banned? And I see no parallels between the swastika and a crucifix on a chain. |
|
|
|
Post by foldart on Oct 3, 2024 8:44:06 GMT
Aren’t Muslim women treated as second class? Isn't the requirement for religious clothing the epitome of coercive behaviour? I think it's a difficult issue. The treatment of Muslims in, say, France and the Netherlands has, in my opinion, been broadly illiberal in the way those countries have 'forced' a form of integration. I think that illiberal treatment resulted in increasingly violent reactions which has fed into equally illiberal Far Right narratives and enabled the rise of people like LePen and Wilders.
I think the risk of a blanket ban in this country runs the risk of having the same effect. I also think you are right and the clothing is a symbol of the oppression of Muslim women, but I think the answer is probably persuasive acculturation rather than blunt force legislation.
Difficult issue perhaps but such laws cannot be selective to who they apply to because if a native of this country decided that they and their family should abide by the strictest of Victorian ideals and a child went to school and said her parents said she had to dress in that manner and when the time came a suitable partner would be selected for her to marry do you think social services would idly stand by? Conversely can you imagine a Muslim girl deciding to identify as a man? What do you think would be the reactions of the local Muslim community and the parents and do you think social services would be involved? Just my opinion but doesn’t when in Rome apply,after all if you visit a Muslim country and they say you have to cover up then you should abide by their rules in the same way when westerners have been caught with alcohol where it’s forbidden and they’re sentenced I have no sympathy they knew the score. |
|
|
|
Post by foldart on Oct 3, 2024 8:48:49 GMT
That’s because you haven’t read and understood my answer which was in two parts. I made no comparison between the dress the comparison was made to the crucifix. But you want to see the burka banned, right? Do you also want to the nun's habit banned? False comparison,they are members of a religious order definitely by choice whereas everyday western women are not required to dress in a nuns habit. Of course you don’t. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Oct 3, 2024 8:56:41 GMT
But you want to see the burka banned, right? Do you also want to the nun's habit banned? False comparison,they are members of a religious order definitely by choice whereas everyday western women are not required to dress in a nuns habit. Of course you don’t. Yes, of course I don't. There is no comparison. The crucifix doesn't symbolise hatred, racial superiority, or the extermination of Jews. And a comparison between the nun's habit and the burka is not false. Both serve the same function: to hide the wearer's sexuality. And, just so you know, Muslim women in the UK are NOT required to wear the burka. Some may be coerced into wearing one, but there are other protections for people who are forced to do things against their will. |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Oct 3, 2024 9:13:50 GMT
I think it's a difficult issue. The treatment of Muslims in, say, France and the Netherlands has, in my opinion, been broadly illiberal in the way those countries have 'forced' a form of integration. I think that illiberal treatment resulted in increasingly violent reactions which has fed into equally illiberal Far Right narratives and enabled the rise of people like LePen and Wilders.
I think the risk of a blanket ban in this country runs the risk of having the same effect. I also think you are right and the clothing is a symbol of the oppression of Muslim women, but I think the answer is probably persuasive acculturation rather than blunt force legislation.
Difficult issue perhaps but such laws cannot be selective to who they apply to because if a native of this country decided that they and their family should abide by the strictest of Victorian ideals and a child went to school and said her parents said she had to dress in that manner and when the time came a suitable partner would be selected for her to marry do you think social services would idly stand by? Conversely can you imagine a Muslim girl deciding to identify as a man? What do you think would be the reactions of the local Muslim community and the parents and do you think social services would be involved? Just my opinion but doesn’t when in Rome apply,after all if you visit a Muslim country and they say you have to cover up then you should abide by their rules in the same way when westerners have been caught with alcohol where it’s forbidden and they’re sentenced I have no sympathy they knew the score. Perhaps my post wasn't clear. I would prefer 'when in Rome' to apply. However, having had nearly 30 years of effective multiculturism and a fairly large Muslim population I worry that the reaction to a 'forced' change in policy would have the same effect as we have seen in the Netherlands and France. I think small persuasive steps is a better solution - for example maybe an increasing number of schools having a 'no religious' uniform codes etc.
I accept everything you say regarding the oppression of too many Muslim women. I also agree with the 'minor' changes to legislation to outlaw forced marriages and
virginity testing. I believe, though, that a general ban on religious based dress for Muslim women would be illiberal and counter productive.
|
|
|
|
Post by foldart on Oct 3, 2024 9:19:06 GMT
False comparison,they are members of a religious order definitely by choice whereas everyday western women are not required to dress in a nuns habit. Of course you don’t. Yes, of course I don't. There is no comparison. The crucifix doesn't symbolise hatred, racial superiority, or the extermination of Jews. And the swastika is an ancient symbol of well being in China and India for thousands of years hijacked by Hitler so a person who decides to display a swastika following the ancient symbol would be prevented from doing so. Double standards methinks. Posting part of your reply in capitals doesn’t reinforce anything,whilst all Muslim women are not required to wear the burqa I suspect many who do are coerced in to doing so and are not members of a religious order so yes your comparison is false as is your use of sexuality. Please show how a coerced Muslim woman is protected by your other protections. |
|
|
|
Post by foldart on Oct 3, 2024 9:19:56 GMT
Difficult issue perhaps but such laws cannot be selective to who they apply to because if a native of this country decided that they and their family should abide by the strictest of Victorian ideals and a child went to school and said her parents said she had to dress in that manner and when the time came a suitable partner would be selected for her to marry do you think social services would idly stand by? Conversely can you imagine a Muslim girl deciding to identify as a man? What do you think would be the reactions of the local Muslim community and the parents and do you think social services would be involved? Just my opinion but doesn’t when in Rome apply,after all if you visit a Muslim country and they say you have to cover up then you should abide by their rules in the same way when westerners have been caught with alcohol where it’s forbidden and they’re sentenced I have no sympathy they knew the score. Perhaps my post wasn't clear. I would prefer 'when in Rome' to apply. However, having had nearly 30 years of effective multiculturism and a fairly large Muslim population I worry that the reaction to a 'forced' change in policy would have the same effect as we have seen in the Netherlands and France. I think small persuasive steps is a better solution - for example maybe an increasing number of schools having a 'no religious' uniform codes etc.
I accept everything you say regarding the oppression of too many Muslim women. I also agree with the 'minor' changes to legislation to outlaw forced marriages and
virginity testing. I believe, though, that a general ban on religious based dress for Muslim women would be illiberal and counter productive.
Fair comment |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Oct 3, 2024 9:24:57 GMT
Yes, of course I don't. There is no comparison. The crucifix doesn't symbolise hatred, racial superiority, or the extermination of Jews. And the swastika is an ancient symbol of well being in China and India for thousands of years hijacked by Hitler so a person who decides to display a swastika following the ancient symbol would be prevented from doing so. Double standards methinks. That's just ridiculous. It really is absurd. Those in Germany who would wear a swastika tattoo or symbol are referencing the Nazis. It would require a monumental effort of self-deception to conclude anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Oct 3, 2024 9:29:08 GMT
Yes, of course I don't. There is no comparison. The crucifix doesn't symbolise hatred, racial superiority, or the extermination of Jews. And the swastika is an ancient symbol of well being in China and India for thousands of years hijacked by Hitler so a person who decides to display a swastika following the ancient symbol would be prevented from doing so. Double standards methinks. Posting part of your reply in capitals doesn’t reinforce anything,whilst all Muslim women are not required to wear the burqa I suspect many who do are coerced in to doing so and are not members of a religious order so yes your comparison is false as is your use of sexuality. Please show how a coerced Muslim woman is protected by your other protections. Well, if she is physically coerced, she has the protection of assault and battery laws. If her freedom of movement is curtailed, she has the protection of false imprisonment laws. And, of course, there is also domestic abuse law. |
|
|
|
Post by foldart on Oct 3, 2024 9:29:18 GMT
And the swastika is an ancient symbol of well being in China and India for thousands of years hijacked by Hitler so a person who decides to display a swastika following the ancient symbol would be prevented from doing so. Double standards methinks. That's just ridiculous. It really is absurd. Those in Germany who would wear a swastika tattoo or symbol are referencing the Nazis. It would require a monumental effort of self-deception to conclude anything else. Why are you making things up,no mention of a tattoo (which in any case could be hidden) I was referring as I guess you know a swastika in the same form as a crucifix. |
|
|
|
Post by foldart on Oct 3, 2024 9:30:13 GMT
And the swastika is an ancient symbol of well being in China and India for thousands of years hijacked by Hitler so a person who decides to display a swastika following the ancient symbol would be prevented from doing so. Double standards methinks. Posting part of your reply in capitals doesn’t reinforce anything,whilst all Muslim women are not required to wear the burqa I suspect many who do are coerced in to doing so and are not members of a religious order so yes your comparison is false as is your use of sexuality. Please show how a coerced Muslim woman is protected by your other protections. Well, if she is physically coerced, she has the protection of assault and battery laws. If her freedom of movement is curtailed, she has the protection of false imprisonment laws. And, of course, there is also domestic abuse law. That worked well for Shafila Ahmed and so many others didn’t it? |
|
