Jump to content

Racist POS Just Deserts


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Its a tiny minority of women in Canada, the States, the UK who wear it.  Who knows how many do so willingly?  

 

Nobody, I guess.  Another thing that is little more than a guess is what is meant by willingly.  If you were to hear of a couple of 16 year olds marrying an elder in Bountiful because they thought their God wanted them to, would you say that was willingly?  Do it or go to Hell?  I'll stick with my view that pretty much nobody would condemn themselves willingly to a lifetime of burka wearing.  They might say they do if the alternative is worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Well why not, eh?  I know it's the UK, and not Canada, but people are actually accusing Boris Johnson of Islamophobia for the letterbox joke!

I can't find any link to the joke but I generally don't find it funny when people mock those with less power than themselves.  It seems to be seen as a refreshing new trend by some but I always believed that those in power should be respectful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I can't find any link to the joke but I generally don't find it funny when people mock those with less power than themselves.  It seems to be seen as a refreshing new trend by some but I always believed that those in power should be respectful.

He said that Burkas looked like letterboxes.  (I never said it was hilarious)  I just find the hysteria over such a mildly offensive quip to be very forced, and self serving.  Look at me, I'm a progressive! 

As for noblesse oblige, It has its place.  I don't see it here though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Nobody, I guess.  Another thing that is little more than a guess is what is meant by willingly.  If you were to hear of a couple of 16 year olds marrying an elder in Bountiful because they thought their God wanted them to, would you say that was willingly?  Do it or go to Hell?  I'll stick with my view that pretty much nobody would condemn themselves willingly to a lifetime of burka wearing.  They might say they do if the alternative is worse.

Yup, thats an argument for sure.  But earlier I mentioned that I would support an age-related limitation on hijabs, burkas and niqabs, partly because of health issues and also the issue of family pressure.

Its pretty arrogant of you, btw, to decide that no woman would choose to do something you neither like nor understand and that therefore she must be doing it against her will even if she doesn't know it.

Edited by dialamah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I can't find any link to the joke but I generally don't find it funny when people mock those with less power than themselves.  It seems to be seen as a refreshing new trend by some but I always believed that those in power should be respectful.

Of everything? At what point in history have those in power been 'respectful' of everything, especially that which runs wildly counter to their values and beliefs?

Canada, and before Canada, Britain, have a long and rich and colourful history of mocking religions and religious beliefs. Why was it okay when they were mocking Christian silliness and not when they mock Muslim silliness? There is no justification for the wearing of a burka which does not provide rich subject matter for mockery and ridicule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Argus said:

There is no justification for the wearing of a burka which does not provide rich subject matter for mockery and ridicule

Or the Nun's habit, the robes worn by Buddhists, barristers and judges, the dresses and bonnets worn by Mennonites, the vestments worn by clerics, the turbans worn by Sikhs.  Mocking people for what they wear is exactly what sophisticated, advanced and intelligent people do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Or the Nun's habit, the robes worn by Buddhists, barristers and judges, the dresses and bonnets worn by Mennonites, the vestments worn by clerics, the turbans worn by Sikhs.  Mocking people for what they wear is exactly what sophisticated, advanced and intelligent people do.

 

You know full well if law requires women to wear veils or whatever...it applies to ALL women. Not just nuns.

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. Of everything? At what point in history have those in power been 'respectful' of everything, especially that which runs wildly counter to their values and beliefs?

2. Canada, and before Canada, Britain, have a long and rich and colourful history of mocking religions and religious beliefs.  

1. For as long as I can remember.  I don't remember people in power making fun of religious dress ever.

2. Political figures have not done this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Its pretty arrogant of you, btw, to decide that no woman would choose to do something you neither like nor understand and that therefore she must be doing it against her will even if she doesn't know it.

Sure, if you like.  What are your views on why most burkas are worn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think it's a kind of defence against guillotines and such.

I think it's more of an obligation adopted voluntarily by the aristocracy.  I don't think it applies to politicians, so I don't see a place for it in the current brouhaha.

I think the only defence against guillotines is to be in another county...

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dialamah said:

Yeah, I don't think so.

Let me simplify.

I don't like niqabs.  I also don't like pants that hang halfway between knees and butt cheeks, showing off hairy butt cracks and dirty underwear.

But neither are illegal.  And in a free country, neither of them should be illegal.  No matter how offensive they are to some portion of the population. 

If a business should choose to disallow niqabs and underwear-exposing pants for their employees or customers, they are free to implement such policies. If an individual refuses to abide by those policies, the business can ask them to leave and call the cops to enforce that request if needed. 

Both people can claim discrimination, though I expect the niqab wearer would be more likely to win a court case due to that Canadian value known generally as "freedom of religion".

The police cannot stop by a public park or street and arrest someone wearing a niqab or low-slung pants.  In that case, both people would win court cases against the police.

You are trying to tell me that company policy about acceptable wear for employees or customers is the same as legislation directing what people can or cannot wear and its not. 

The problem for you, I am guessing, is that people's right to practice their religion as they see fit (within the law) is more important than pandering to people who don't like niqabs, at least so far.  Things may change; Canada has never shrunk from pandering to xenophobia, from the Chinese head tax, to interring Japanese, to turning away Jews.  No reason Muslim women shouldn't be next on that list.

Maybe you don't get the point. Based on some of your other comments, though, I wonder whether your real intent is to cast as bigots and xenophobes those who rightfully point out that Charter rights aren't absolute? Most people don't expect the government to tell people what they can wear in parks or on the streets. In this country, after all, it's not actually illegal to wear nothing in public. Nobody is going to stop people from dressing as they please in parks or while walking along streets, provided no actual harm is caused others. But governments can dictate and even legislate behavior in environments that are definitionally fall within their legislative and/or regulatory jurisdictions, including but not excluded to publicly funded educational settings, government offices, banks and the courts.

Edited by turningrite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Sure, if you like.  What are your views on why most burkas are worn?

Religious belief.  

People in most Muslim majority countries do not like face coverings, and many also think women should be able to choose what they wear, suggesting that social pressure to wear face coverings is considerably less than Westerners assume.  The hijab is the preferred "look".   

From a Canadian survey.

The women interviewed were generally young and the vast majority had chosen to wear the niqab on their own, often despite the protests of family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, turningrite said:

But governments can dictate and even legislate behavior in environments that are definitionally fall within their legislative and/or regulatory jurisdictions, including but not excluded to publicly funded educational settings, government offices, banks and the courts.

Yes they can, and they do.  

 

10 hours ago, turningrite said:

Based on some of your other comments, though, I wonder whether your real intent is to cast as bigots and xenophobes those who rightfully point out that Charter rights aren't absolute?

"Charter rights are not absolute" is a different conversation than "niqabs or burkas should not be allowed in Canada".  I believe I have already acknowledged more than once that the Government can implement laws that limit people's freedom.

Edited by dialamah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, turningrite said:

One has to wonder whether young women who choose to wear face coverings in places like Canada are mainly doing so as a political statement rather than out of religious belief. Perhaps it's become a form of fashionable self-othering? But it also raises the question of whether these women truly understand the Islamist ideology they so openly appear to espouse? The most vocal critic of female Muslim religious wear I ever met was a women with whom I worked when volunteering a couple decades ago who'd fled post-revolutionary Iran. She vociferously criticized fundamentalism and its manifestations as being inherently inhumane. So, the fact that younger women in the West are choosing to adopt these habits, and that self-styled progressives are willing to champion this trend, seems even more problematic than many analysts seem willing to admit. To me it's not a manifestation of "freedom" but instead seems to represent a reactionary form of sentimentalist self-delusion. I guess we're all free to delude ourselves but to assert face covering as amounting to progressive accommodation is so 'unwoke' as to make rational beings cringe.

 

They're sticking-it to the "Man".

Irony.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, turningrite said:

One has to wonder whether young women who choose to wear face coverings in places like Canada are mainly doing so as a political statement rather than out of religious belief

I believe the increase in hijab wearing is definitely related to that.  I suspect a lot of the young women who wear hijab do not even attend Mosque regularly, if the remainder of their outfit is anything to go by.  It reminds me of what I saw in Egypt when I was there - form hugging clothes on young women wearing hijab.  If modesty is what is supposed to be represented by the hijab, the clothing certainly contradicted that message.  As anti-Muslim sentiment grows in Western countries based on claims that Muslims know are not true, an hijab is an easy way of identifying each other while perhaps also thumbing their nose at those who denigrate Islam and Muslims.   If we learned to ignore hijabs, I suspect that the trend would be less women wearing them.  

I think a Burka and niqab are more due to religious belief than a political statement, though certainly that is also part of it if the purported rise in sales after attacks on Muslims is any indication.  The overall lack of social support for face covering in most countries of the world, aside from Saudi Arabia, means that these women really are going against the norm and that is not uncommon among people who are very devout.  

Overwhelmingly, though, any individual woman's reason is unknowable.  To say that we should outlaw a practice because some women might be forced, or because it reflects misogyny ignores the women who choose it as well as those women who have had to fight family in order to be allowed to wear it.   If, as the links I posted suggest, face veiling is most often the woman's choice - then perhaps our assumptions need to be checked before we make laws based on those assumptions.

35 minutes ago, turningrite said:

But it also raises the question of whether these women truly understand the Islamist ideology they so openly appear to espouse? 

Or perhaps, like black people who can refer to each other as " ", or women who call each other "bitch", the goal is to remove the stigma and negativity of face-coverings, to truly make it a woman's choice and not a man's.  Not saying that is the goal, merely presenting a different interpretation.

38 minutes ago, turningrite said:

So, the fact that younger women in the West are choosing to adopt these habits, and that self-styled progressives are willing to champion this trend

I see it as championing "choice".   Even though there are some aspects of burkas/niqabs that I agree are troubling, to me they are not certain enough, nor is the trend widespread enough, to justify using laws to remove the choice women may want to make to cover their entire body.   That the other side constantly characterizes this as championing "misogyny" because "they aren't Christians" is ridiculous.  I think if we're going to legally dictate women's clothing based on the patriarchal religious belief, we should have to include certain extreme Christian groups as well. 

Quote

To me it's not a manifestation of "freedom" but instead seems to represent a reactionary form of sentimentalist self-delusion.

Perhaps.  But if a woman knows face coverings are not directed by her God or her Prophet and must fight her family to wear one, shouldn't that be her choice in a free society?   

Quote

I guess we're all free to delude ourselves

Indeed, in this country at least, we are free to delude ourselves and follow whatever practices we want - short of those currently deemed illegal.  

Quote

but to assert face covering as amounting to progressive accommodation is so 'unwoke' as to make rational beings cringe.

To assert that a law banning face veils is (or would be) based on caring about female equality and not merely government pandering to bigots is so "unwoke" as to make rational beings cringe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. For as long as I can remember.  I don't remember people in power making fun of religious dress ever.

There never was much in the way of religious dress to make fun of here in years past. But it's been done in the UK before, where politicians are considerably more free to speak their minds.

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Political figures have not done this.

Oh of course they have. But the mockery has been directed at Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Religious belief.  

And what is that belief?

I watched a video the other night of maajid nawaz doing a radio phone in thing in the UK where he was confronting a conservative Muslim by demanding to know why, if he thought it was proper that 5 year old girls wear hijabs young boys shouldn't wear them too. The man was, to put it mildly, confused, frustrated and angry at the question.

The only religious support for these garments is one calling on both men and women to dress modestly. Yet Muslim men routinely appear in shorts and t-shirts while women have to cover themselves to avoid inciting lust in men. The very idea women who consider themselves liberal and progressive would support this only illustrates how easily they lie to themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83anxoq_MSY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, dialamah said:

To assert that a law banning face veils is (or would be) based on caring about female equality and not merely government pandering to bigots is so "unwoke" as to make rational beings cringe.

If it's 'woke' to support the wearing of a shroud which permanently shuts a woman off from the world and all human contact, from ever feeling the breeze on her face or the sun on her skin, all in order to prevent males from being incited to lust by her appearance then no rational being would want to be 'woke'. 

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Argus said:

And what is that belief?

I watched a video the other night of maajid nawaz doing a radio phone in thing in the UK where he was confronting a conservative Muslim by demanding to know why, if he thought it was proper that 5 year old girls wear hijabs young boys shouldn't wear them too. The man was, to put it mildly, confused, frustrated and angry at the question.

The only religious support for these garments is one calling on both men and women to dress modestly. Yet Muslim men routinely appear in shorts and t-shirts while women have to cover themselves to avoid inciting lust in men. The very idea women who consider themselves liberal and progressive would support this only illustrates how easily they lie to themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83anxoq_MSY

Yes, Islam is a religion.  I don't think 5 year old girls should be wearing hijab; third time in last couple of days I have mentioned opposition to young girls and hijabs. 

To be consistent, I suppose I must object to the little white things very young Sikh boys wear in lieu of turbans.  But for some reason I am not as concerned about that.  Are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yes, Islam is a religion.  I don't think 5 year old girls should be wearing hijab; third time in last couple of days I have mentioned opposition to young girls and hijabs. 

There is no religious requirement for adults to wear them either.

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

To be consistent, I suppose I must object to the little white things very young Sikh boys wear in lieu of turbans.  But for some reason I am not as concerned about that.  Are you?

No, I'm not. I think all religious garments are stupid, but the more uncomfortable, repressive and obvious it is the worse I like it.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Popular Now

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,764
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    robretpeter42
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...