Ban the Burkha?

[tab1 10]

Maybe not in the constitution.

But it does exist in pakistan is is rampant like in most other muslim countries.

I would say that statement is ignorant rubbish. In the north western Pakistan where there is strong presence of Taliban types they attempted to implement their form of Sharia and for a time even carried out some atrocities but have had their butt kicked since. Get your facts of reality rather then invent them please.

 

The rampant claim is ludicrous and if you list all the Muslim countries and state which ones have sharia based laws then you would have to change all their names to either Iran or Saudi Arabia because otherwise you will find majority of the others don't as far as I am aware.

Edited July 13, 2010 by tab1

[tab1 10]

So if there was a Jewish majority government you would introduce mandatory child torture (or, as you call it, circumcision)?

If that was the majority situation you would be treated just like the Palestinians are today in an open prison and one punishment for all, your home bulldozed for any offence from motoring infringement to Murder.

[grgrsmth 10]

If that was the majority situation you would be treated just like the Palestinians are today in an open prison and one punishment for all, your home bulldozed for any offence from motoring infringement to Murder.

 

And when anyone else complained the Jews would just mumble "Holocaust" and everyone else would pretend nothing is happening and give them free weapons.

[tab1 10]

Personally, I see anybody wearing the niqab or burka in this country as ignorant. You may see that as ironic if you take the opposite view in which case I'm sure you'll think I'm the ignorant one (but then I'll just think you're ignorant too).

 

It may be customary in other cultures and/or in other countries to talk to one another without making face contact with pieces of cloth hiding the face, however it is customary in English/British and indeed the wider western culture to talk to one another face to face whilst showing your face that enables proper and full interaction/communication with one another. If a niqab or burqa wearer was to talk to me without revealing their face first, I would be offended and consider that extremely rude and impolite. If they continued to expect to talk to me whilst they can see my face but not allow me to see theirs, I might be so petty as to pick up a piece of cardboard or a magazine and hold it up and let them talk to that.

 

We are constantly told in various ways to respect other cultures and customs, but should that not be a two way street? Where is the respect for the British customs by these people?

 

I also recognise it is not very British to go banning things though. So I would stick with the status quo, allow the minority to carry on wearing what they wish, and allow people like me to continue to view them as ignorant. Doesn't do much for community cohesion, but at least all our rights are preserved eh?

All these scenarios are well and good and may even make sense except in real life as a Muslim I have never and I mean never have been in a situation where I have had a need to hold a conversation with a burkha clad lady, so what chance have you? Most of these security and interview scenarios are based on nonsense that is unlikely to happen to most of the people reading this thread so why all the hype? Edited July 13, 2010 by tab1

[mj.scuba 10]

Having someone look at you is not part of our culture, is the point. Are you saying that the shy are therefore not English, culturally?

 

More to the point, people who stare at you for the entire time they are talking to you would be regarded as a bit weird, frankly.

 

Even if they are shy, when they do come into contact with others they don't go wearing buckets with cut out holes or anything of the sort.

 

Face contact does not require staring at each other the entire time.

[mj.scuba 10]

All these scenarios are well and good and may even make sense except in real life as a Muslim I have never and I mean never have been in a situation where I have had a need to hold a conversation with a burkha clad lady, so what chance have you? Most of these security and interview scenarios are based on nonsense that is unlikely to happen to most of the people reading this thread so why all the hype?

 

As a parent who interacts with other parents in the school yard I would not be comfortable engaging with the ones wearing the Niqabs. I talk with the ones wearing the Hijab, they are as approachable as anybody and don't mind a chit chat about the kids or whatever, you know just small talk whilst you're waiting for the kids to come out. The ones wearing the Niqabs stand alone, only talking to other Muslim ladies, no interaction with any of the non-Muslims.

[Halibut 12]

A few questions for those who would favour a ban.

 

a) What would it actually achieve?

 

b) What would be it's likely effect on moderate muslims? Would it be likely to encourage greater tolerance and respect of Islam or vice versa?

 

c) Would you approve of those who chose to wear a face covering for non-religious or cultural reasons being areested and charged with an offence?

[alex3659 11]

I have nothing to do with the bleedin middle east, it's a hang up of the paranoid Israel lovers. All I comment on is the injustice perpetrated in the name of religion and some two thousand plus year old God promise.

 

No you don't you rant at anything said about Islam you don't agree with but show the same contempt to others of a religion you don't like.

Your as bad as the people you claim to have hang ups about and while people think like you no middle ground can be found.

[ValW 10]

...as a Muslim I have never and I mean never have been in a situation where I have had a need to hold a conversation with a burkha clad lady, so what chance have you?

...

 

You're not a bus-driver then are you? or does it have to be a prolonged conversation to count?

 

I don't like burkhas for many of the reasons already mentioned, but if a woman wants to wear one, fair enough. I'd like to know how anyone could tell it was really her decision though, and she wasn't being put under pressure by her husband, or any other male relative, or even neighbours.

 

If we could be sure every burkha wearer had made their own decision, fine. But I don't think we can say that. So how can we get the men who insist on burkhas to stop interfering? I doubt if that's possible, as long as burkhas are legal.

[alex3659 11]

The lower house in France have voted in favour of the ban.

[Jew Boy 10]

I would say that statement is ignorant rubbish. In the north western Pakistan where there is strong presence of Taliban types they attempted to implement their form of Sharia and for a time even carried out some atrocities but have had their butt kicked since. Get your facts of reality rather then invent them please.

 

The rampant claim is ludicrous and if you list all the Muslim countries and state which ones have sharia based laws then you would have to change all their names to either Iran or Saudi Arabia because otherwise you will find majority of the others don't as far as I am aware.

 

You may have had a good point to make unfortunatly you see fit to belittle anyone elses opinion that isnt the same as yours.

So your piont is lost in your rantings.

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

I take it you're prepared to dismiss English (and indeed Western) culture?

 

It's generally considered to be important to western culture to have personal freedom to do as you like so long as it isn't harming others. Your response suggests that you don't find this acceptable, but want everyone to behave like you in order to avoid offending you. This is traditionally a viewpoint contrary to that of modern western democracies.

 

Why do you hate freedom?

 

I don't hate freedom. What makes you think that, because my opinion does not conform with yours, I must hate freedom? (Not only do I not hate freedom, but I don't get worked up about straw man arguments either.)

 

Notwithstanding your weak argument, deliberately acting in a manner which you know is likely to offend others is not acceptable in Western culture (and it's probably not acceptable in any other culture.)

 

I haven't argued for banning the burkha (indeed, if you bothered to read my posts you would be aware that I said that IMO it should not be banned.)

 

I do think, however that it should be discouraged, because its wear is likely to be divisive.

 

As you are aware, I am an immigrant - and I've been an immigrant in one country or another since I was about 18.

 

There is a world of difference between 'immigrant' and 'settler'. Few people object to immigrants.

 

There have been exceptions; most recently those who objected to temporary financial migrants from Central Europe and the Afro-Caribbeans who objected to Pakistanis in/near Birmingham a few years ago. In both cases, the main objectors appeared to be poorly-educated, poorly-qualified, poorly-motivated people who were anxious that they would lose their jobs to immigrants who were prepared to work harder/work smarter.

 

Immigrants are people who come (usually singly or in small groups) to a country, settle in, adopt (or adapt to) the morés and culture of the country and are - eventually - assimilated.

 

A settler is something entirely different. England was last settled in 1066. - Prior to that it was settled by various tribes who drove out/subjugated the existing inhabitants.

 

Settlers arrive either in large groups or congregate in large groups after arrival. They occupy the land, but do not attempt to integrate with the people already living there, preferring instead to set up their own communities following their own customs, observing their own laws and speaking their own languages.

 

'Whitey' settled large parts of Africa, Australia and the Americas. In South America 'Whitey' (The Conquerors) became assimilated and when they moved to North America, 'Los Conquistadores' are now a 'downtrodden minority' (or so some would have you believe. )

 

Modern (last 50 years) history has said that Whitey was wrong to settle in other people's lands. If it's wrong for Whitey to settle in other people's lands, how could it be right for other people to settle in his? It wasn't illegal for Whitey to settle in other people's land - nor is it illegal for other people to settle in his - but 'settlers' seem to cause far more problems than do immigrants.

 

I'm not saying that people have attempted to set up colonies in the UK - indeed it's a while since I lived in there and most of what I know about 'immigrants' 'settlers' is what I gleaned during the run-up to the last election.

 

I doubt that there are many people in England who object to immigrants. It appears, however, that a large number are concerned by what they see as an influx of settlers. If the people who come to a country are going to be assimilated, then surely anything which sets them apart from the remainder of the population is undesirable?

 

I've been made very welcome here (and in a number of other countries.) I'm not obliged to wear their Traditional Dress (indeed, that wouldn't go down at all well), nor am I expected to learn the local language (they would prefer me to speak German) but I am expected to 'fit in' and if I were to hop up and down and require that they made allowances for me or that they observed the morés of my culture, that welcome would soon disappear.