Under what circumstances should the veil be banned in public?

[DogOnPorch]

Jack Webster: Are you a moderator at Rabble?

Familiar with that form of the undead, are you?

Bring a silver cross, I say. Perhaps an oaken stake.

[WIP]

Good grief...

Are you a moderator at Rabble?

Are you descending to the level of sharkman's idea of debate? Maybe I should join Rabble, because I don't see anything as objectionable as some of the posts on this forum.

Seriously...I specifically said Islamofascists because I was going after a segment of Islam.

yeah, and so is George Bush!

I don't think it's a monolithic faith,but it's being hijacked by the crazies at the moment.

Oh for Christs sake! You may be the only one who believed Bush's "extremists have hijacked a great religion" speech. The neocons and the theocons didn't believe it, but at least George II was able to fool someone.

How do you propose 'unhijacking' Islam then? If you believe that foreign, non-Muslims can step in and fix their religion for them?

US foreign policy is what's causing Islamofascism???The first people killing Muslims are the Islamofascists who kill all Muslims who are'nt Islamic enough in their eyes.It would be nice if they stood up against these thugs,but they've cearly been beaten into submission by these bloodthirsty thugs.

In light of recent history, reformers or attempted reformers in the Muslim World are easy to paint as collaborators with the U.S. If there is a pervasive sense of cultural inferiority with the West driving Muslim animosity of Western culture, the best advice is still to back off and end the wars and get the military bases and carrier fleets out of there....let BP pay for their own convoys, they've still got plenty of money.

The problem with looking at Islam and Muslim World problems with your Neoconservative ideology, is that you are expecting them to act in America's and the West's interests. They may have interests of their own which do not include keeping us supplied with cheap oil.

Are their criticisms of Western culture and global capitalism totally without merit? Maybe they are if you have a vested interest in the way the present system is running; but there are growing numbers of us here who are looking at the increasing income gaps, growing poverty, loss of manufacturing jobs, glorification of rampant, unbridled consumption, and wondering if we really have the best system, or whether we could do better. I think some of their criticisms of Western Civilization are on target, whether or not they are advanced with the best of intentions is another matter.

And now,in true Fascist fashion,they've started to strike out against those that are different and whom they deem inferior..(ie.The West,the people of The Cross,the Infidel etc,etc).They are now in our midst...I give you the self proclaimed "Al Quaeda family" known as the Khadr's as exhibit A...

And how typical is the Khadr family as an example of Canadian Muslims? The exception does not prove the rule.

These are bloodthirsty Fascist thugs who have wrapped up years of poverty and oppression under Fascist Ba'Athist regimes in an insular,and rigid, interpretation of their faith.

The Ba'athist parties in the Arab World were socialist republicans, who dreamed of coalescing as one Arab state. They were not Islamists, and if you check your history, Sayid Qutb, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and ideological father of movements like Al Qaeda, was executed in Egypt by Nasser.

[Bonam]

In light of recent history, reformers or attempted reformers in the Muslim World are easy to paint as collaborators with the U.S. If there is a pervasive sense of cultural inferiority with the West driving Muslim animosity of Western culture, the best advice is still to back off and end the wars and get the military bases and carrier fleets out of there....let BP pay for their own convoys, they've still got plenty of money.

Let me get this straight, you want oil corporations like BP to hire their own military escorts? Corporate carrier battle groups perhaps? From the guy who rages against corporations, I'm surprised you'd want to give them such unprecedented power. By the way, having military forces sailing under corporate instead of national flags wouldn't exactly reduce the amount of resentment their presence may generate.

Are their criticisms of Western culture and global capitalism totally without merit? Maybe they are if you have a vested interest in the way the present system is running; but there are growing numbers of us here who are looking at the increasing income gaps, growing poverty, loss of manufacturing jobs, glorification of rampant, unbridled consumption, and wondering if we really have the best system, or whether we could do better. I think some of their criticisms of Western Civilization are on target, whether or not they are advanced with the best of intentions is another matter.

Their criticisms may perhaps have some occcasional merit if they had a better alternative to offer. Sultans and Shahs and Kings becoming billionaires and stashing their wealth in Swiss bank accounts while their people starve doesn't strike me as a better alternative to capitalism, however.

The Ba'athist parties in the Arab World were socialist republicans, who dreamed of coalescing as one Arab state. They were not Islamists, and if you check your history, Sayid Qutb, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and ideological father of movements like Al Qaeda, was executed in Egypt by Nasser.

Yes, they wanted to create a nationalist Arab state. They were violent ethnic nationalists, more commonly known as fascists in the Western context. Not exactly a shining alternative to the Islamists if you ask me.

[g_bambino]

Why would they care?

Because their racism could never be fully hidden behind a veil (pun!) of distaste for a certain cultural practice.

In any case, I still do not see the need for Bonam's idea that you can dictate to other people what they may passively do on your property, outside of common standards of decency and etiquette.

Ah, but there's the rub: "common standards of decency and etiquette." As I understand it, it's not commonly decent or within the bounds of accepted etiquette to have your face covered in the company of others without rational reason - to protect against cold, against pollution, to protect skin that's dangerously sensitive to ultraviolet light. (Yes, for the rare masked ball or annually on Hallowe'en, it's acceptable to cover one's face. But the entire point of those events is to have fun by being unconventional and break the normal social standards.) So, while I don't believe any law banning the burqua or niqāb (which literally translates into "mask") is necessary, I, at the same time, believe business owners and managers should be free to refuse, without penalty, service to someone who won't remove their mask. After all, as has already been pointed out, if it's acceptable to say "no shirt, no shoes, no service," why can "no face, no service" not be said?

Of course, that has nothing to do with the ḥijāb, which is specifically the original subject of this thread and with which I have no issue, what-so-ever; except in sports or certain fields of labourious employment, perhaps.

[Sir Bandelot]

Reuters 7/27/2010 — Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader condemned a French move to ban Islamic face veils in an Internet message posted on Tuesday.

Ayman al-Zawahri said in the audio recording that a bill passed by French lawmakers which could fine women for appearing in public with face-covering veils was "an attack on Islam."

The new law, which still has to be vetted by a constitutional body and approved by the Senate, could make France the second European country after Belgium to criminalize the veil.

"France with all its power is unable to expose the head of a nun but it attacks every veiled woman." the Egyptian militant leader said. "This is the freedom of the infidels and not the freedom of Muslims who hold fast to their religion"

I think al-Zawahiri makes a good point here, it is a law being used to specifically target muslims, when there is no real problem.

[ToadBrother]

I think al-Zawahiri makes a good point here, it is a law being used to specifically target muslims, when there is no real problem.

To be fair, France has banned, for instance, the wearing of religious symbols in public schools. I wouldn't exactly praise al-Zawahiri. If he had his way in our part of the world, a veil ban would seem positively liberal.

[WIP]

Let me get this straight, you want oil corporations like BP to hire their own military escorts?

You find that an outrageous suggestion, when the U.S. itself is outsourcing their security to private contractors?

Corporate carrier battle groups perhaps? From the guy who rages against corporations, I'm surprised you'd want to give them such unprecedented power. By the way, having military forces sailing under corporate instead of national flags wouldn't exactly reduce the amount of resentment their presence may generate.

What I said is that they should have to pay the costs directly, and then we would see how cheap the oil is coming to us from Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf, and Nigeria. Speaking of Nigeria, since we are learning that BP and other oil companies want to focus their deep water drilling on these sorts of banana republics, that have no labour or environmental laws....and dictators that can easily be bought off, there should also be an international body, with teeth, to monitor offshore oil developments in these countries, so that they are not subject to Gulf-type disasters.

Their criticisms may perhaps have some occcasional merit if they had a better alternative to offer. Sultans and Shahs and Kings becoming billionaires and stashing their wealth in Swiss bank accounts while their people starve doesn't strike me as a better alternative to capitalism, however.

The Shah that was installed on behalf of BP, is the primary reason why Iran ended up run by the Ayatollahs....so that's a bad example to use. It actually strengthens the case many economists and other educated critics of globalization have regarding attempts to turn them into little americas.

[jbg]

If it's contrary to laws of the land, such as preventing Identification when voting, entering the country, youngster's ID'd for booze, etc.

Beyond that, what's the point in caring what other people do when it doesn't harm us?

Do you think people should be able to conduct their banking in skiing face masks?

[August1991]

In the poll, I've distinguished between those who wear the veil for religious reasons and those who wear it for secular reasons since I believe there are some in here wold would likely make that distinction and just want to see if my hunch is right.

What happens if a Muslim woman is named to the Supreme Court? Can she wear the veil?

What if the police stop her for a check while driving?

You should not be allowed to hide your face in most public settings, regardless of the reason. Especially places like stores, schools, and banks.

So, you would forbid wigs or makeup?

[jbg]

What happens if a Muslim woman is named to the Supreme Court? Can she wear the veil?

Given that the veil is not even religiously required it is a device designed to set the Muslim women apart from society. I would hope that Supreme Court justices wouldn't have that aim.

What if the police stop her for a check while driving?

So, you would forbid wigs or makeup?

In both cases (yes I realize I split the paragraphs differently than August's post) I would argue that the issue is context-dependent. If someone's appearance indeed does not match their identification they may well be in for a tough go of it.

[Sir Bandelot]

Ah yes, the blessed security requirements that make this world so safe and secure.

We have put "security" on such a pedestal that it is now sacrosanct, held high above all other human virtues. How dare you ever challenge or question the security agent. Please answer all questions truthfully. Fill out your forms. Provide photo ID. Fully disclose your financial and medical history. Refusal to do so is a criminal offence.

[DogOnPorch]

The Shah that was installed on behalf of BP, is the primary reason why Iran ended up run by the Ayatollahs....so that's a bad example to use. It actually strengthens the case many economists and other educated critics of globalization have regarding attempts to turn them into little americas.

For about the billionth time on this board, the Shah wasn't 'installed' by anyone in 1953. He was already on the thone of Iran. The whole Operation Ajax BS was to remove that troublemaker Mosaddegh and get Western owned oil interests back that were 'nationalized'. Try 'nationalizing' a laptop next time you're in London Drugs and see who the police arrest.

[bloodyminded]

For about the billionth time on this board, the Shah wasn't 'installed' by anyone in 1953. He was already on the thone of Iran. The whole Operation Ajax BS was to remove that troublemaker Mosaddegh and get Western owned oil interests back that were 'nationalized'.

Yes, Mossadegh was a troublemaker, but the murderous Shah, of course, was not. Since he was properly friendly to powerful western interests and leaders, he was a good guy.

And oil, like many of the resources that naturally belong to us, often happen to be underneath other people's feet....an accident of geography, I guess. But of no relevance so long as we have murdering tyrants to obey Downing street (formerly) and later Washington.

Try 'nationalizing' a laptop next time you're in London Drugs and see who the police arrest.

Then the analogy must work for the dear Shah as well:

Try murdering people next time you're in London Drugs and see who the police arrest.

Unless, of course, you get the friendly nod from Washington, after which you may kill and torture to your heart's desire.

This is your lunatic metric, about which you're kind enough to be fairly explicit:

Nationalizing "Western-owned oil interests" is such a profoundly serious and reprehensible sin, that the people of the country in question must live under mass killers who obey Western power.

Whereas murdering and torturing people is acceptable, so long as the sacred "Western-owned oil interests" remain inviolate.

Do you hum the Imperial March as you type this stuff?

Edited August 3, 2010 by bloodyminded

[jbg]

Ah yes, the blessed security requirements that make this world so safe and secure.

We have put "security" on such a pedestal that it is now sacrosanct, held high above all other human virtues.

I tink you're putting political correctness on the same sort of "pedestal". Why shouldn't people who come to our respective countries assimilate and fit in? Why should we have to plunge our countries into the grim, featureless medieval garbage that they supposedly wanted to leave? And as for security, I personally like to see who I'm dealing with (well maybe not in brutal cold). Especially when some of these people seem to have tricks up their sleave that aren't funny for the West.

[madmax]

For about the billionth time on this board, the Shah wasn't 'installed' by anyone in 1953. He was already on the thone of Iran.

Correct, he was installed after an Anglo Soviet Invasion during WW2 to replace his Fahhzher..

The whole Operation Ajax BS was to remove that troublemaker Mosaddegh and get Western owned oil interests back that were 'nationalized'. Try 'nationalizing' a laptop next time you're in London Drugs and see who the police arrest.

Might I just add. that 1953 is when the Shah flees and returns after the failed coup attempt and then a successful 2nd attempt.

By the early 1950s, the political crisis brewing in Iran commanded the attention of British and American policy leaders. In 1951 Dr. Mosaddegh was appointed Prime Minister and committed to nationalizing the Iranian petroleum industry controlled by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. Under the leadership of the nationalist movement of Dr. Mohammed Mosaddeq, the Iranian parliament unanimously voted to nationalize the oil industry thus shutting out the immensely profitable Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which was a pillar of Britain's economy and provided it political clout in the region.

At the start of the confrontation, American political sympathy was fortcoming from the Truman Administration. In particular, Mossadegh was buoyed by the advice and counsel he was receiving from American Ambassador in Tehran, Henry Grady. However, eventually American decision-makers lost their patience, and by the time a Republican Administration came to office fears that the Communists were poised to overthrow the government became an all consuming concern. Shortly prior to the 1952 presidential elections in the US, the British government invited Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., of the CIA to London to propose collaboration on a secret code named "Operation Ajax" to force Mosaddegh from office.[5]

Under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer and grandson of former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, the American CIA and British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) funded and led a covert operation to depose Mosaddegh with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah. Referred to as Operation Ajax.[6] The plot hinged on orders signed by the Shah to dismiss Mosaddegh as prime minister and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi a choice agreed on by the British and Americans.

Despite the high-level coordination and planning, the coup initially failed, causing the Shah to flee to Baghdad, then Rome. As was his inclination in his later political life, the Shah was riddled with indecision when confronted by a political crisis. After a brief exile in Italy, the Shah returned to Iran, this time through a successful second attempt at a coup. A deposed Mosaddegh was arrested, subjected to a show trial, and sentenced to three years of solitary confinement in a military prison, followed by house arrest for life. Zahedi was installed to succeed Prime Minister Mosaddegh.

Edited August 3, 2010 by madmax

[Shwa]

Do you hum the Imperial March as you type this stuff?

Or the Chiquita Banana jingle if you replace the word 'oil' with 'banana' and move the location into Central America.

[DogOnPorch]

madmax: Might I just add. that 1953 is when the Shah flees and returns after the failed coup attempt and then a successful 2nd attempt.

Yes indeed...for which the CIA gave its famous support by providing the aircraft. A C-124 Globemaster, I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_C-124_Globemaster_II

[DogOnPorch]

madmax: Correct, he was installed after an Anglo Soviet Invasion during WW2 to replace his Fahhzher..

Agreement. 1941 to be exact. This due, of course, to Operation Barbarossa going on to the north and the Shah's poppie being a tad too friendly with the SS.

As well, the UK and (mainly) the USA dumped tons of money and effort into building the Persian Corridor (roads, bridges, airports, etc) for Russian Lend-Lease. British Columbia, Yukon and Alberta enjoyed the same benefit when the Alaska Highway(s) went in.