Official asks visitors to take off veil

[Riverwind]

Now we're back to the square #1. Is it the official itself who gets to decide what is "appropriate"?

We decide through dialogue and consensus. If the overwhelming majority of people think bikini thongs and veils are not appropriate then then are not appropriate - end of story. If society changes in 50 years and decides that bikini thongs are appropriate provided you wear a veil then so be it. I am making the argument that we should not accept veils as appropriate in our society today because they symbolize the oppression of women. That could change in the future.

[M.Dancer]

Now we're back to the square #1. Is it the official itself who gets to decide what is "appropriate"?

We decide through dialogue and consensus. If the overwhelming majority of people think bikini thongs and veils are not appropriate then then are not appropriate - end of story. If society changes in 50 years and decides that bikini thongs are appropriate provided you wear a veil then so be it. I am making the argument that we should not accept veils as appropriate in our society today because they symbolize the oppression of women. That could change in the future.

Thongs....definately...for security reason I might add.........

[myata]

This is a deeply flawed approach. There's no such thing as generally "appropriate". What is an acceptable dress on a gala night may not be the same on the nude beach. I personally would find it inappropriate to visit a bureaucrate in shorts and sandals (and socks, anyone?) but I'm sure any number of people will have no problem with that.

[Ladyjen]

This is a deeply flawed approach. There's no such thing as generally "appropriate". What is an acceptable dress on a gala night may not be the same on the nude beach. I personally would find it inappropriate to visit a bureaucrate in shorts and sandals (and socks, anyone?) but I'm sure any number of people will have no problem with that.

Veils are not just innapropriate, they are offensive. Not just to women and men in this country who believe in equality but to those who simply wish to have eye and expression contact with those to whom we are speaking.

[JerrySeinfeld]

This is a deeply flawed approach. There's no such thing as generally "appropriate". What is an acceptable dress on a gala night may not be the same on the nude beach. I personally would find it inappropriate to visit a bureaucrate in shorts and sandals (and socks, anyone?) but I'm sure any number of people will have no problem with that.

Veils are not just innapropriate, they are offensive. Not just to women and men in this country who believe in equality but to those who simply wish to have eye and expression contact with those to whom we are speaking.

It comes down which culture rules the day in our society - a midievil one or an advanced one.

In our culture we don't wear masks to business meetings.

Now the question is: will their culture adapt to our norms, or will our culture adapt to theirs?

[myata]

If you wish to communicate with someone on your terms, you can ask it of them (if you find it polite of course).

The guy is a public official however, and they're paid enormous $$$ to grow skin of which any elephant can only dream. They're by the way, the same people who were selling us the (in)famous "45 min threat" from Iraq along with other bbs - never losing straight face. That their sensitivity leaves them unable to talk to someone with covered face leaves me oh so emphatic. Almost to the point that I'll step up to offer standing in for them - for a fraction of reward.

[jbg]

The veil to me, is a uniform that symbolizes the suppression of a whole lot of human beings. I am not comfortable when I see women's faces covered because somebody has brainwashed them from birth to believe that they are "less than". When I see veils of any sort, the images of women in Bhurkas being shot to death, in the back of a pick up truck, in a baseball field, is still fresh in my mind.

I see it more as an attack on all of us, than a brainwashing of the women. They are saying, in effect, "we live here, but don't want any part of you".

[scribblet]

The veil to me, is a uniform that symbolizes the suppression of a whole lot of human beings. I am not comfortable when I see women's faces covered because somebody has brainwashed them from birth to believe that they are "less than". When I see veils of any sort, the images of women in Bhurkas being shot to death, in the back of a pick up truck, in a baseball field, is still fresh in my mind.

I see it more as an attack on all of us, than a brainwashing of the women. They are saying, in effect, "we live here, but don't want any part of you".

They are also saying they don't trust men.

Don't forget the cleric in Australia who referred to women as meat, read his little speech and you'll get the idea.

http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region...48&region=7

The following are extracts from Sheik Taj Din al-Hilaly's controversial sermon given last month, as independently translated by an SBS Arabic expert.

"Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast? Where will they end up? In hell and not part-time, for eternity. They are the worst in God’s creation."

"When it comes to adultery, it’s 90 percent the woman’s responsibility. Why? Because a woman owns the weapon of seduction. It’s she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. It’s she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then, it’s a look, a smile, a conversation, a greeting, a talk, a date, a meeting, a crime, then Long Bay jail. Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years." there's more....

[Higgly]

... we're gonna be dhimmis by mid century....

Or landed immigrants. The Dhimmi laws went out of favour in the early 1800s. On the other hand, a Jew could have trouble getting a membership in an American country club in the 1970s.

Grow up.

[jbg]

... we're gonna be dhimmis by mid century....

Or landed immigrants. The Dhimmi laws went out of favour in the early 1800s. On the other hand, a Jew could have trouble getting a membership in an American country club in the 1970s.

Grow up.

Then why do Jews have such a hard time living in Saudi Arabia, or keeping their head attached to their necks?

[scribblet]

The clerik in Australia is being backed by a British cleric

Further to the issue of the veil, more on this is coming out.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2426770,00.html

Veil teacher was obeying a fatwa

Abul Taher

THE Muslim teacher who insisted on wearing a veil in class has been following a fatwa issued personally to her by a Islamic cleric belonging to a hardline sect.

Aishah Azmi found herself in the middle of a national row about integration when she took her school to an employment tribunal after it suspended her for refusing to remove the veil in class.

Tony Blair joined the debate about the wearing of veils — opened by Jack Straw, the Commons leader — and supported the school’s actions.

Azmi, 24, has maintained that her decision to wear the veil was driven entirely by her personal beliefs, rather than the advice or instruction of a third party. But this weekend it emerged that she refused to take the veil off at school after receiving a fatwa, or religious ruling, from Mufti Yusuf Sacha, a Muslim cleric in West Yorkshire. "

[RB]

My problem is how women cannot see that they belong to "inequality" and will allow men to dictate their dress code while the men prance around in far more comfortable attire. And I can further suggest that inequality belongs to a bottom of welfare ranges.

I mean if both men and women were dressed as the above they are uniform and equal. If we were comparing these folks as in absolute equal, in this case both men and women were alike in a free and absolute equal. Means that men and women participates in equal or can make a claim for equal participation.

But men are women are not dressed alike and therefore there is a supposition from the beginning of the genders is absolutely unequal. What I mean is there are unequal parts and men are rewarded larger flexibility which means someone is having a larger share which means they are having more than equal.

Look at this number difference

2-1=1

4-3=1

10-9=1

Men are always comparing themselves in the absolute, their numerical difference among each other is the same. Men are equal in all respect and all around.

If women didn't realise this - here is my assessment:

that if women continue to allow men to influence their choices they would be "nearer" to the internal stasis of acceptance of men median while they become voices of a few. In other words we can have voices of "that of the people" meaning men and voices of that of a "few" meaning women.

Women are rather absurb and continue to demean themselves to their own demise.

[Drea]

Gibberish.

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

"women are rather absurd and continue to demean themselves to their own demise." ??

[jbg]

Gibberish.

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

"women are rather absurd and continue to demean themselves to their own demise." ??

The grammar isn't the best but I do understand it. The grammar form is proper in Canadian, but not in English.

What he's trying to say is that these women are allowing themselves to be humiliated to their own disadvantage and possibly to death if their husband is abusive.

[RB]

Well, I must apologise that my writing is not accessible.

So I will take the time to put it in layman’s language so that you can get the construct

"My problem is how women cannot see that they belong to "inequality" and will allow men to dictate their dress code while the men prance around in far more comfortable attire. And I can further suggest that inequality belongs to a bottom of welfare ranges."

The Islamic world is still largely patriarchal i.e. ruled by the male masters and brain.

Wearing the veil/burka symbolizes a woman's submission to men. I mean why is it that only men would want to confront their sexual urges and for that reason the women must cover up. I mean women also have sexual urges, but the for some reason women must gaze on the men in entirety – why can't the men veil themselves also, and protect themselves. Women’s sexuality is constantly active, isn’t it?

Most of the Muslim women I speak with are apologetic for their head gear, they wish to be identified as a Muslim. Now whether they understood the connotations of socio-political and economic stresses for themselves who knows but their wish to be observers instead of being observed certainly is not oppressed but more like “I am watching you”, is uncomfortable to say the least, what the heck!!.

The advantage of the selected attire such as the burka usually means that they do not have to bother about making some fashion statement.

But my assessment of Muslim women even if they were smart, the symbolism of their covering their heads give the indication that their brain must be covered up, this inertia extends and now their voice literally becomes incoherent and muffled with clothing over their mouths.

I largely sympathise with these well intentional muffled voices, I don’t mean to distress anyone - I might as well put it in the same category of challenged folks: meaning they need accommodation.

"I mean if both men and women were dressed as the above they are uniform and equal. If we were comparing these folks as in absolute equal, in this case both men and women were alike in a free and absolute equal. Means that men and women participates in equal or can make a claim for equal participation."

Generally the above is a parallel and analogous to democracy. I infer to the beginning of time that there seem to be unequal systems of "justice" and that even now that a male child can claim that he is too good to be in the category of equality with women and because of this thought the falsity of what is equal can never exists.

What I mean is that even though Islam might make a claim of equal participation of everything between men and women and women seem to "buy in" to what the Islam religion offers such as they are not oppressed by men, the fact remains that equality is exclusive in this instant to men.

And unless women start regulating their share of equality such as "power" and function within themselves that they might very well cease to regulate their own stance and succumb to men as they do in their defiance currently to stand "tall".

and so on .......

[Drea]

But it sounds like you blame the women!?

...And unless women start regulating their share of equality such as "power"...

These women have no power whatsoever. They (unlike most Christians) take their "bible" literally and if it says women are second class citizens then they believe it. The men of course, are in a position of power and will do nothing to change the powerlessness of the women.

[RB]

But it sounds like you blame the women!?""...

Women are intelligent and smart and can take charge of their own lives.

Its sad because women are mostly guided by what they believe is principles and are not motivated as men to seek power. I mean a man is motivated to enter into politics because of power. That’s the general difference.

Women usually enter say politics because they seek to make some change, then they have to practice on how the change is made, they weaver their stand, then stand-up for their passion, then learn their lessons on how to articulate in a man's world but they can make it - even though very few do in politics.

[betsy]

The wife to the ambassador of Afghanistan, in collaboration with a few other women from Afghanistan are putting up an exhibit called, "Voices on The Rise". They are photographs of women in Afghanistan trying to make a difference. One woman journalist (Afghan) is shown thrusting a microphone in the face of a minister, surrounded by men....and here she is, covered from head to toe. Apparently, she eventually had to flee the country along with her family when the Taliban came.

There are changes happening...but of course, it will take a very long time for change to come...and for them to catch up to their western counterparts. IF they eventually secure the freedom to do so. And that is a big, if.

These women are truly oppressed. What western women had experienced in the old days... is nowhere near in comparison to what these women had gone through...and are still going through. More tough times ahead for these women, I'm afraid. It will be a real steep uphill battle.

But knowing that there is help from the outside must be at least buoying for them. Knowing that someone is on their side.

[betsy]

So there is this dilemma among the left: backing up an obvious oppressive belief in the fight for cultural freedom.....or standing up in defiance alongside these women.

Those who try to bring in Christian or Jewish or other religious expressions into the argument....obviously are missing the point. Or they must know the quandary they're facing. And are refusing to deal with it.

[myata]

So, let's go ahead and "liberate" them even if it's against their will? (Note that the topic started with an episode in the UK, not Afganistan. If you believe that someone is oppressed without recourse in countries such as UK or Canada, you should provide some evidence).

[scribblet]

Sweden is adding its voice to the mix, this woman is Muslim but even she is beling called an 'Islamaphobe' how does that work.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2415525,00.html

THE latest media darling of Scandinavian politics is not only black, beautiful and Muslim; she is also firmly against the wearing of the veil.

Nyamko Sabuni, 37, has caused a storm as Sweden’s new integration and equality minister by arguing that all girls should be checked for evidence of female circumcision; arranged marriages should be criminalised; religious schools should receive no state funding; and immigrants should learn Swedish and find a job.