Islamic veils is it right to ban and issue fines?

dhope

jeremyrundle wrote:

we allow everyone to come here and S*D the old British ways, live here respect us as I would others in their country.

Comin over ere, takin our jobs... naturally you'd respect their beliefs if you went to their country. Hang on, 'their' country? Maybe we should tell DDD and EKE to f off back to 'their' own countries too... what year was it when we determined ownership of a country and any valid belief system again? :roll:

Btw, I'm an athiest and all your religions are stupid, I'll disrespect you all equally.

DonDaddyD

dhope wrote:

Maybe we should tell DDD and EKE to f off back to 'their' own countries too...

Well here's the thing... I've been to Jamaica once and my Mum was born here... I got confused why I have to tick Black Carribean in the Census form when clearly I'm black British with more attachment to Black, less attachment to British and even less attachment to Carribean - even then its a big place full of numerous ethnicities. Yes I'm not the most patriotic Brit but I have more claim to here than elsewhere.

Just saying and you make a good point against Jrundle.

SmellTheGlove

No.
If there is a "target" they are going after the wrong one. Being entirely a matter of personal interpretation and choice, the wearing of a veil is not a symbol of a particular religion. By banning it and emphasising a religious angle to the ban, the French state manages to hand the control freaks among the fundis another grievance and evidence of persecution, which I (possibly contentiously) might add are among the very things that feed the craving for victimhood and underdog status that certain needy brands of religion are happy to suffer from in public.

Daft law from start to finish but hey, Sarkozy could hardly be less popular anyway.

bails87

No.

The state has no business telling people what they can and can't wear in public places.

Agent57

I put "White - Other" on the census, IIRC. There's no really apt category for someone who's half British, half-Guyanese (South American, or West Indian, depending on how you look at it), but with that Guyanese half actually being a mixture of Chinese and Indian. Well, I suppose I could have put White-Asian, but I don't identify myself as Asian. Ho hum! They should put a "Mongrel" category.

bails87

jeremyrundle wrote:

100% YES, ban anything that covers a persons face so they can not be seen, hoods etc, and the overgarments worn by women of the islam faith are NOT worn for religion, no where does it say islam women have to wear it, the majority of English women of that religion are against it being worn, I would ban hoodies etc.

I have even been asked to remove my cycle helmet in a supermarket as they do motorbike helmets, happy to oblige , I have NOTHING to hide :x

If I were to go to France to live I would honor their beliefs and views, trouble is we allow everyone to come here and S*D the old British ways, live here respect us as I would others in their country.

I know you've got a DM link in your sig, but I didn't think you actually took the thing seriously! Poor, poor Jeremy.

These bloody beekeepers, coming over here with their faces covered, stealing our bees!

EKE_38BPM

Agent57 wrote:

I put "White - Other" on the census, IIRC. There's no really apt category for someone who's half British, half-Guyanese (South American, or West Indian, depending on how you look at it), but with that Guyanese half actually being a mixture of Chinese and Indian. Well, I suppose I could have put White-Asian, but I don't identify myself as Asian. Ho hum! They should put a "Mongrel" category.

You and SimonAH if I remember correctly.
Ever thought about having your mitochondrial (sp?) DNA looked at to follow your family line back into time? Yours could be really interesting. Bit of native Guyanese, bit of Indian endentured labourer, bit of early Chinese diaspora, bit of British (and therefore Scandanavian/Celt/German etc).

bails87

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

I put "White - Other" on the census, IIRC. There's no really apt category for someone who's half British, half-Guyanese (South American, or West Indian, depending on how you look at it), but with that Guyanese half actually being a mixture of Chinese and Indian. Well, I suppose I could have put White-Asian, but I don't identify myself as Asian. Ho hum! They should put a "Mongrel" category.

You and SimonAH if I remember correctly.

Me too! Well, I think it's a pretty simple mix, but in the eyes of some I'd be 'mongrel'. Interestingly, a girl once called me 'Hovis'....as in 'best of both'. Not sure whether to be offended, flattered or amused!

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

more attachment to Black

Not sure I understand that

I feel no attachment to being White.

bails87

I think he means he feels black, but not really Caribbean. Which makes sense if he's black but lived his whole life in Britain.

dhope

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

more attachment to Black

Not sure I understand that

I feel no attachment to being White.

+1 :?

ndru

I don't know if it's right for them to ban it legally, but to be totally honest, although I would like to think I am not prejudiced, I find covering face as threatening. Sort of what criminals do when they are up to no good - it's a bit childish I know, but it's somehow rooted in the western culture. Do you think this should be respected as well? There's a lot of talk about respecting other cultures, but hardly anyone thinks about respecting the culture of the host, methinks. I don't think there's a good way of establishing if the veil is forced upon a woman or not, thus I think the ban might have some merit.

dhope

ndru wrote:

but hardly anyone thinks about respecting the prejudice of the host, methinks.

ftfy

I don't think we should have laws that reinforce bigotry, no matter how deep rooted or subconcious it is. Racism wasn't such a bad thing 50 years ago... except it was, it was just more common and so less negative reaction cropped up when casual comments were thrown around.

Agent57

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Ever thought about having your mitochondrial (sp?) DNA looked at to follow your family line back into time? Yours could be really interesting. Bit of native Guyanese, bit of Indian endentured labourer, bit of early Chinese diaspora, bit of British (and therefore Scandanavian/Celt/German etc).

I've never heard of such a facility, but that would indeed be interesting. I don't know if there'd be any native South American. As I inderstand it, my great-grandparents on my father's side met on Trinidad; my grandfather Indian, and my grandmother half-Indian, half-Chinese. As far as I know, both sets of roots were indentured labour. My great-grandfather's name was "George Washington Chandisingh", which doesn't strike me as a name likely to be wholly Indian in origin, and my great-grandmother was Rookabai Elizabeth Burns Maharaj (originally a Brahmin child). The British-style names in there are intriguing. I think my great-grandfather got given the name George Washington when he was baptised.

I do have some family tree details for my grandmother, whose family name was Chan Tiam; her mother was Indian, Dora Bansraji, and her father was Francis Xavier Chan Tiam. Again, that western influence in the names leads me to believe they were indentured labour, or in some way connected with missionaries or somesuch.

Um... Anyway, I'm getting very off the topic! That DNA thing does sound interesting!

EKE_38BPM

Mitochondrial DNA is passed on from Mothers to kids, so it can only follow your Mum's side of the family I think.

The Japanese American futurologist whose name I can't remember (and my google-fu is having a day off) thought he was Japanese through and through, but when he did this he found there was Korean and Mongolian DNA in him.

We're all a bit Heinz (57 varieties). A little bit of this, a little bit of that.
Did you see when Spike Lee was on Who Do You Think You Are? He ended up having a very polite conversation with an old white Southern American (southern states of the US, not Argentinian/Chilean etc) who was his cousin.

Back OT, its a pity that some Muslims think that Burqas need to be worn to prevent men from turning into animals and raping them.
Says a lot about the men who make the women wear the Burqas.

deptfordmarmoset

On the census options, in effect there are 3 questions to do with nationality. The first is clearly to do with which you identify with.

Q15 How would you describe your national identity? It's up to you to tick, say, English, British or ''Other'' and write in your own self-description.

Q16 is to do with ethnic group. As I understand it, DDD would have had to choose between ''Caribbean'' or ''Any other Black/African/Caribbean background'' which he can write into the boxes. Agent57 would have the Asian/Asian British options to choose from, or write down. There are only 17 letter spaces on the printed form (there may be more online, I can't remember) but I doubt that there's any legal restriction on the number of letters used. So, if it doesn't fit, write whatever it is in there and thereafter...

Q22 is What passports do you hold? If it's not ''UK'' ''Irish'' or ''None'' you'll have to spell it out.

So the form covers identification/ethnicity/and formal nationality.


As for the French way of seeing the world - and I've spent a fair time in France - I think it's sometimes useful to bear in mind that the genius of being north of the English Channel and the genius of being au sud de la Manche, can only really be understood by remembering that we have completely different, sometimes purely opposite ways of seeing the world. Our lost property is objets trouvés (found objects), our still life artworks are nature morte.

Exactly the same ideas use exactly opposing formulations - lost and found, living and dead.

Part of that talent for seeing the same things in opposite ways is also reflected in these 2 countries' ways of self-defining. France stresses ''universelles'' values in a very unified way, leading to a doctrinal ''one size fits all'' approach which is meant to be secular but is often a form of unconscious Christianity. They banned religious emblems in schools but allowed Christmas trees (arbres de Noël) because they were deemed ''secular.''

On the British side, by contrast, there is a strong pluralistic conception. UK doesn't mean English, it doesn't mean Scottish, Northern Irish, or Welsh either. Our weakness is a hypocritical one - we have a tendency to profess to be ''multicultural'' whilst not giving a toss about other ethnicities (well apart from the food...) - of leaving them somehow ''here but over there'' and having nothing to do with them.

So, to avoid provoking too many tl;dr responses, I think I'm saying it might just work in France, despite the unconsciously Christian conception of secularity, but it would never work or be right here. Or it should never be right here...?

Mr_Cellophane

Rick Chasey wrote:

A law aimed at a particular mainstream religion?

I think it's absolutely awful.

The fact that the BBC has to list 7 "Islamic" veils shows that this is not aimed at a mainstream religion, but only at a very minor part of that religion. Perhaps someone can correct me, but I thought that Islam only required modesty and hair and limbs covered. The burqa is more a cultural item than a religious one.

tailwindhome

Mr_Cellophane wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

A law aimed at a particular mainstream religion?

I think it's absolutely awful.

The fact that the BBC has to list 7 "Islamic" veils shows that this is not aimed at a mainstream religion, but only at a very minor part of that religion. Perhaps someone can correct me, but I thought that Islam only required modesty and hair and limbs covered. The burqa is more a cultural item than a religious one.

Phew! That's OK then.

daviesee

rjsterry wrote:

daviesee wrote:

I don't think there should be a ban on clothing per se.
However, wherever and whenever ID is required I can see the point. Motorbike helmets have to be removed in a variety of places for example.

I don't think those who choose to cover their face generally have an objection to uncovering it when reasonably required for identification or other practical reason. It's the general going about their business that's at issue. This is supposed to enforce a more homogenous and integrated society, but I can only see this backfiring.

I agree with your final point but there are cases where identifying people has proved "tricky". Didn't one suspected terrorist allegedly flee the Country wearing a full burkha? Tenuous I know but that's where this law begins.

As an aside. Don't the French also ban wearing crosses to school? I think that the French are simply trying to be as non-secular as possible and i can't blame them for that.

Politics, money and religion. Three topics that shouldn't be discussed unless you want an argument. And I have covered all three today :oops:

greg66_tri_v2.0

There are two distinct issues here:

1. Should a government be entitled to legislate as to what members of the public can wear in public. I would have thought the answer to this is obviously yes. At a bare (hahha) minimum, a govt is entitled to legislate that people should wear something in public (and it does, with no objection). At the other end of the spectrum, does anyone really think a government should not be able to prohibit (say) swastika armbands, or white sheet and pointy hood outfits being worn in public?

2. Should the govt use its power to prohibit burkas in public? What is the principle behind the prohibition? Is it the general one that people should not go around masked? Is it the counter domestic oppression masquerading as religious dogma? Or something else? I don't know. But if it is the former, I don't think that is a good enough ground. Wandering around in a motorcycle helmet isn't objectionable. I'd say it is objectionable to wear a mask to disguise yourself when you're about to commit a crime. But no one pretends that the burka'd women are wearing their burkas for that purpose.

Whether the domestic oppression argument is supported by enough empirical evidence to get off the ground, I don't know.

Personally, I don't really care for the full burka look (isn't that a niqib?). But I can't see a strong enough argument to warrant banning it in public. That said, there are obviously occasions when it would be right to demand its removal; police questioning being an obvious example.

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

more attachment to Black

Not sure I understand that

I feel no attachment to being White.

Probably didn't word it right.

Black (British) as in the ethnicity in England is in (in my opinion) a once emerging now established culture in itself. There are common similarities between most black people who were born and have lived the majority of their lives in Britain that they can share and collectively identify with. It is something I feel an affinity with more so than being outright British, English or even Carribean.

A great contrast is that my British cultural identity is decidedly different from Ms DDD's cultural identity which is clearly white working class British.

However, going one step further. A sub culture within Black British and working class culture is emerging that is often referred to as 'urban' culture. You could argue transcends race. (I personally don't care for the term "urban")

Both find its roots from the offspring of ethnic minority immigrants coming over in the 50's/60's and living amongst working class Brits.

But my singular perspective could be wrong (in terms of the wider population) as it only really considers inner cities.

Still I personally feel more attachment to being simply Blakck (British) than anything else. I struggled with the census form because while my roots may be Carribean and West African before that (that I know of, not sure where my Mum's 'people' came from) I no longer think British/Black Carribean is the best way of describing me. This would also extend to any offspring I may have (which would be Mixed and White and Black Carribean*).

*I'm not I'm Black British and at what point did black people taken from Africa start identifying themselves as Carribean.

DonDaddyD

Mr_Cellophane wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

A law aimed at a particular mainstream religion?

I think it's absolutely awful.

The fact that the BBC has to list 7 "Islamic" veils shows that this is not aimed at a mainstream religion, but only at a very minor part of that religion. Perhaps someone can correct me, but I thought that Islam only required modesty and hair and limbs covered. The burqa is more a cultural item than a religious one.

The trouble is Islam is so rooted in the culture, in fact its the basis and foundation of the culture, that it is nigh impossible to clearly identify a distinction.

To attack the culture is by extension an attack on Islam, which is where the problem stems from.

As I'm to understand unlike the West (Europe) that seperated the Church's rule/teachings from everyday society. Most Islam nations did not and therefore their religous belife's are still very much a cruicial part of their everyday lives, society and culture.

gtvlusso

DonDaddyD wrote:

So, our French (well the Normans did conquer Britain) overlords have decided to ban and issue fines to women wearing the Islamic veil.

While the law doesn't specifically name Islamic veils it does, apprantly, list a number of exceptions which essentially singles out Islamic veils.

Do you think such a ban is the right? Would you like to see the UK to adopt such a stance? And obviously why?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13050445

Technically, the Normans were not French - they were descended from immigrant Norwegian settlers or Vikings.

The Normans won one battle against a rabble of anglo-saxon peasants armed with bits of wood. These peasants had just legged it from the North of England to Hastings after winning another battle - ever so slightly knackered. The Normans had a cavalry and professional troops too.

Back on topic:

I don't think anyone/any country has the right to ban the choices of the individual. Some islamic women choose to wear a burka - up to them.

However, I would rather see religion police itself and more defined terms/dress codes and guidelines for believers from imams and clerics. After all the clerics and imams are their to educate.

ndru

dhope wrote:

ndru wrote:

but hardly anyone thinks about respecting the prejudice of the host, methinks.

ftfy

I don't think we should have laws that reinforce bigotry, no matter how deep rooted or subconcious it is. Racism wasn't such a bad thing 50 years ago... except it was, it was just more common and so less negative reaction cropped up when casual comments were thrown around.

The thing is, there's a difference if you hate someone just because of their ethnicity, religion, culture and just feeling uneasy then someone covers their face for whatever reason. I think you can't really call it prejudice. I would feel just as uneasy in presence of someone wearing a balaclava, a bandana across their mouth or so on. It's not the actual piece of garment that is a problem - it's covering the face.
Also it seems weird to me that the culture and habits of minorities are all fine, however traditions and culture of the host are automatically "prejudice". Is it impossible to respect each other culture, while valuing your own? How is it that suddenly western culture is offensive to everyone else, but the culture of minorities isn't. Who is tolerant and who is bigoted. Sometimes I feel westerners are bigoted and intolerant towards themselves.

Wallace1492

DonDaddyD wrote:

So, our French (well the Normans did conquer Britain) overlords have decided to ban and issue fines to women wearing the Islamic veil.

While the law doesn't specifically name Islamic veils it does, apprantly, list a number of exceptions which essentially singles out Islamic veils.

Do you think such a ban is the right? Would you like to see the UK to adopt such a stance? And obviously why?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13050445

Just a quick history lesson, the Normans were decended from Viking stock that settled in Normandy, therefore technically not French.

There are two sides to this debate. It is obviously designed to free women from oppression, where they are seen to be forced to wear the veil. On the other hand, their culture is being forced out of them where they voluntarily wish to wear a veil.

When I travel abroad, I accept the local customs - no alcohol, long trousers in certain places, whatever it may be, even though I do not agree with it. (especially the booze one!)

I agree that women should not be forced to wear the veil as many seem to be, but a full on ban in perhaps heavy handed.

bails87

ndru wrote:

dhope wrote:

ndru wrote:

but hardly anyone thinks about respecting the prejudice of the host, methinks.

ftfy

I don't think we should have laws that reinforce bigotry, no matter how deep rooted or subconcious it is. Racism wasn't such a bad thing 50 years ago... except it was, it was just more common and so less negative reaction cropped up when casual comments were thrown around.

The thing is, there's a difference if you hate someone just because of their ethnicity, religion, culture and just feeling uneasy then someone covers their face for whatever reason. I think you can't really call it prejudice. I would feel just as uneasy in presence of someone wearing a balaclava, a bandana across their mouth or so on. It's not the actual piece of garment that is a problem - it's covering the face.
Also it seems weird to me that the culture and habits of minorities are all fine, however traditions and culture of the host are automatically "prejudice". Is it impossible to respect each other culture, while valuing your own? How is it that suddenly western culture is offensive to everyone else, but the culture of minorities isn't. Who is tolerant and who is bigoted. Sometimes I feel westerners are bigoted and intolerant towards themselves.

Ah yes, the proud western culture of never covering faces. Except when skiing, beekeeping, fencing, getting married, indulging in a little 'gimp' fun etc.

What western culture do you think is being attacked by this law? How is Western culture being called offensive? No-one is saying that veils are compulsory, just that people should have a choice. Restricting choice is not what the west is about, we should encourage personal freedom.

bails87

Wallace1492 wrote:

. It is obviously designed to free women from oppression

Or it's obviously a move by an unpopular leader to pander to the increasingly right-wing French public. Maybe.

King Donut

bails87 wrote:

What western culture do you think is being attacked by this law?

Integration and community.


This , this and this...

ndru wrote:

Is it impossible to respect each other culture, while valuing your own?

Wallace1492 wrote:

When I travel abroad, I accept the local customs - no alcohol, long trousers in certain places, whatever it may be, even though I do not agree with it. (especially the booze one!)

gtvlusso wrote:

However, I would rather see religion police itself and more defined terms/dress codes and guidelines for believers from imams and clerics.

rick_chasey

Mr_Cellophane wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

A law aimed at a particular mainstream religion?

I think it's absolutely awful.

The fact that the BBC has to list 7 "Islamic" veils shows that this is not aimed at a mainstream religion, but only at a very minor part of that religion. Perhaps someone can correct me, but I thought that Islam only required modesty and hair and limbs covered. The burqa is more a cultural item than a religious one.

Islam is a mainstream religion.

The law is aimed at Islamic people.

It's just as bad in switzerland with the banning of people being allowed to build minarets.

ndru

bails87 wrote:

ndru wrote:

dhope wrote:

ndru wrote:

but hardly anyone thinks about respecting the prejudice of the host, methinks.

ftfy

I don't think we should have laws that reinforce bigotry, no matter how deep rooted or subconcious it is. Racism wasn't such a bad thing 50 years ago... except it was, it was just more common and so less negative reaction cropped up when casual comments were thrown around.

The thing is, there's a difference if you hate someone just because of their ethnicity, religion, culture and just feeling uneasy then someone covers their face for whatever reason. I think you can't really call it prejudice. I would feel just as uneasy in presence of someone wearing a balaclava, a bandana across their mouth or so on. It's not the actual piece of garment that is a problem - it's covering the face.
Also it seems weird to me that the culture and habits of minorities are all fine, however traditions and culture of the host are automatically "prejudice". Is it impossible to respect each other culture, while valuing your own? How is it that suddenly western culture is offensive to everyone else, but the culture of minorities isn't. Who is tolerant and who is bigoted. Sometimes I feel westerners are bigoted and intolerant towards themselves.

Ah yes, the proud western culture of never covering faces. Except when skiing, beekeeping, fencing, getting married, indulging in a little 'gimp' fun etc.

What western culture do you think is being attacked by this law? How is Western culture being called offensive? No-one is saying that veils are compulsory, just that people should have a choice. Restricting choice is not what the west is about, we should encourage personal freedom.

See this is where the problem lies for me - "proud western culture" - no not proud - just normal like every other. Nothing wrong with valuing it. I really can value my own culture and respect other's. However if I find something that makes me feel uneasy I just say it - voicing you opinion is nothing wrong either I think. There's a difference between criticizing an action because of what it is and criticizing it because of it's background.
Yes people do cover their faces in western culture as well for many activities, but would you agree that they do it for particular activity not for all social interactions? I think this is where the difference lies. Again - I would feel equally uneasy in presence of someone who wears a helmet all the time, or a fencing mask. I would be scared shitless if someone approached me wearing a beekeeper mask though.
I never said western culture is being attacked. I am only saying that if you say that something in your feeling doesn't seem right to you you are called prejudiced.
Values in society stem from the culture - if someone's culture involves honor killings, cannibalism and human sacrifice, we say no to that - obviously this is the extreme. But then again personal freedom ends somewhere. So what I'm saying is - maybe this is one thing that should be maybe not banned but discouraged.