ForumGarden

Because they are a symbol of the subjugation of women, President Nicolas Sarkozy says.

Your thoughts?

Source Sarkozy says burqas have no place in France  - Yahoo! News UK

It's their country. If you went to Saudi Arabia you would be expected to obey their customs, cover up and not insult their sensibilities. My understanding is that it is not a religious requirement but something fundamentalists like to impose.

gmc;1207202 wrote: It's their country. If you went to Saudi Arabia you would be expected to obey their customs, cover up and not insult their sensibilities. My understanding is that it is not a religious requirement but something fundamentalists like to impose.


hear hear!!!

Oh you asked my thoughts

Well I am of the opinion that if you come to my country and you wish to integrate then you learn about us and learn the ways of Canadians. This means your religious knives are seen as weapons, please do not bring them into our schools, some of your head covering on athletes pose a choking hazard so either learn to live without them or do not partake in our sports, your full body coverings pose recognition issues in secure areas within our culture learn to live without them or don't come to my country. your language barriers cause further problems in some of the following areas where I can be at risk,

as a medical professional, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND YOU! and you need to understand me

as an everyday citizen you need to understand our language so you can read street signs, safety warnings, function safely in dangerous jobs, situations etc.

just my 2 cents worth.

gmc;1207202 wrote: It's their country. If you went to Saudi Arabia you would be expected to obey their customs, cover up and not insult their sensibilities. My understanding is that it is not a religious requirement but something fundamentalists like to impose. No doubt he'll be accussed of being a fascist.

gmc;1207202 wrote: It's their country. If you went to Saudi Arabia you would be expected to obey their customs, cover up and not insult their sensibilities. My understanding is that it is not a religious requirement but something fundamentalists like to impose.


If you asked around in Tower Hamlets you'd hear that it's what the burka'd women there prefer to wear. I'd take what they say at face value rather than imagine wilder alternatives.

oscar;1207246 wrote: No doubt he'll be accussed of being a fascist.


Not at all. Just of being a biased supporter of apartheid Israel. Where do you get fascist from? I've never seen that said by anyone rational.

spot;1207250 wrote: If you asked around in Tower Hamlets you'd hear that it's what the burka'd women there prefer to wear. I'd take what they say at face value rather than imagine wilder alternatives.


What-you expect us to believe that you an unrelated male walked up and asked them if they like wearing a tent? Did you peer in throw the grill? You must have terrified the poor dears who are wearing it so strange men aren't tempted by them. What kind of pervert goes around asking women in burqas if they are happy? How dare you go against their culture and speak to a muslim women without a male relative present. If there was a male relative present what answer did you really expect them to say what they actually think?

We stop people walking around naked because some religious groups find it highly offensive why is it not OK to be offended by someone concealing their faces. At least naked people make people laugh. Goes right against our deep seated culture which i think it is reasonable to expect people living here and in france to accept. Eye to eye contact is a very important part of our daily interaction in our culture. Just think about it-if someone won't look straight at you when talking to you we instinctively think them untrustworthy at you, if someone looks away or looks down when you are talking to them we find it offensive. If they don't smile back or return a greeting we consider it rude. In a very real sense wandering around in a burqa in europe is as offensive as a western woman wearing a mini skirt and a skimpy vest in saudi. They wonlt tolerate it so why should we feel guilty in asking for a bit of respect for our ways?

posted by spot

Not at all. Just of being a biased supporter of apartheid Israel. Where do you get fascist from? I've never seen that said by anyone rational.


How did you get from burqas in france to apartheid israel?

France also banned the prominent display of Christian symbols. They're being consistent in recognising how divisive religion actually is.

gmc;1207295 wrote: How did you get from burqas in france to apartheid israel?
By suggesting that the French President is displaying an anti-Islamic position in both cases.

As for Tower Hamlets there's a reasonable in-depth article in the Independent: Why they can't turn their backs on the veil: Islam's strict dress code has divided young Muslim women in London's East End, writes Asla Aydintasbas - Life & Style - The Independent

buttercup;1207156 wrote: Because they are a symbol of the subjugation of women, President Nicolas Sarkozy says.

Your thoughts?

Source Sarkozy says burqas have no place in France* - Yahoo! News UK


i didn't find anything he said horribly offensive,

but he could have done more good by setting up a shelter for any of the Muslim women that wanted to get away from that type of treatment, imho.

The horror of it is ~> the women think it's just fine and dandy, too...

If sexual equality is the law of a particular country (such as the UK), the woman should be able to freely choose whether to wear a burqa or not. It should not be imposed on her for any reason. This can be translated as also saying that she has the freedom to choose to follow a religion of her choice or no religion at all. There cannot be a law for one group of people and a different law for others.

OpenMind;1207321 wrote: If sexual equality is the law of a particular country (such as the UK), the woman should be able to freely choose whether to wear a burqa or not. It should not be imposed on her for any reason. this can be translated as also saying that she has the freedom to choose to follow a religion of her choice or no religion at all. There cannot be a law for one group of people and a different law for others.


I have no doubt the large majority of women who freely adopt the burqa in Tower Hamlets agree with you entirely, as far as the burqa-wearing goes.

So do I.

As for a freedom to choose to follow a religion of ones own choice or no religion at all, that presumably comes under the law against assault: An assault is legally defined as an intentional reckless action causing a person to fear or expect personal violence or immediate unlawful force. An assault can therefore be deemed to take place where there has not been any physical contact, but there is a fear or expectation of violence. An offence of assault is tried in the magistrates' court, with a maximum fine of up to £5,000 and/or six months' imprisonment.

Or, depending on what's involved, the offence of Threatening Behaviour. My point is that the law is already in place to deal with threats against anyone taking such decisions. There are obviously more serious charges for more serious attempts at coercion.

minks;1207215 wrote: Oh you asked my thoughts

Well I am of the opinion that if you come to my country and you wish to integrate then you learn about us and learn the ways of Canadians. This means your religious knives are seen as weapons, please do not bring them into our schools, some of your head covering on athletes pose a choking hazard so either learn to live without them or do not partake in our sports, your full body coverings pose recognition issues in secure areas within our culture learn to live without them or don't come to my country. your language barriers cause further problems in some of the following areas where I can be at risk,

as a medical professional, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND YOU! and you need to understand me

as an everyday citizen you need to understand our language so you can read street signs, safety warnings, function safely in dangerous jobs, situations etc.

just my 2 cents worth.


Well said Minksy! :yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap

Fyrenza;1207309 wrote: The horror of it is ~> the women think it's just fine and dandy, too...


Do they? :sneaky: Or are they brainwashed by their patriarchal families? :sneaky:

OpenMind;1207321 wrote: If sexual equality is the law of a particular country (such as the UK), the woman should be able to freely choose whether to wear a burqa or not. It should not be imposed on her for any reason. This can be translated as also saying that she has the freedom to choose to follow a religion of her choice or no religion at all. There cannot be a law for one group of people and a different law for others.


A perfect ideology but sadly things don't work like that in real life.

And as a PS, there is ALWAYS "a law for one group of people and a different law for others." Never heard of one law for the rich and one for the poor? One law for them and another law for us? One law for the rulers and another for the ruled.....etc., etc.

spot;1207328 wrote: I have no doubt the large majority of women who freely adopt the burqa in Tower Hamlets agree with you entirely, as far as the burqa-wearing goes.

So do I.

As for a freedom to choose to follow a religion of ones own choice or no religion at all, that presumably comes under the law against assault: An assault is legally defined as an intentional reckless action causing a person to fear or expect personal violence or immediate unlawful force. An assault can therefore be deemed to take place where there has not been any physical contact, but there is a fear or expectation of violence. An offence of assault is tried in the magistrates' court, with a maximum fine of up to £5,000 and/or six months' imprisonment.

Or, depending on what's involved, the offence of Threatening Behaviour. My point is that the law is already in place to deal with threats against anyone taking such decisions. There are obviously more serious charges for more serious attempts at coercion.


But who would ever report such offences or assaults? These women have been brought up as second class citizens to obey their husbands and fathers. They would never dare to speak or act against them. We all know it's true. We also all know they have no such freedoms in any parts of their lives. Furthermore, we all know that this will not change. Maybe one day, hopefully, but not yet.

Rapunzel;1207359 wrote: But who would ever report such offences or assaults? These women have been brought up as second class citizens to obey their husbands and fathers. They would never dare to speak or act against them. We all know it's true. We also all know they have no such freedoms in any parts of their lives. Furthermore, we all know that this will not change. Maybe one day, hopefully, but not yet.


If you read the article in the Independent that I linked to you could perhaps come back in here and explain why your perception differs so much from what's reported there. It's the same difference as black being white.

Rapunzel;1207351 wrote: A perfect ideology but sadly things don't work like that in real life.



And as a PS, there is ALWAYS "a law for one group of people and a different law for others." Never heard of one law for the rich and one for the poor? One law for them and another law for us? One law for the rulers and another for the ruled.....etc., etc.


Of course I've heard of this, Mel. It doesn't make them right just because they're commonly practised.

spot;1207328 wrote: I have no doubt the large majority of women who freely adopt the burqa in Tower Hamlets agree with you entirely, as far as the burqa-wearing goes.

So do I.



As for a freedom to choose to follow a religion of ones own choice or no religion at all, that presumably comes under the law against assault: An assault is legally defined as an intentional reckless action causing a person to fear or expect personal violence or immediate unlawful force. An assault can therefore be deemed to take place where there has not been any physical contact, but there is a fear or expectation of violence. An offence of assault is tried in the magistrates' court, with a maximum fine of up to £5,000 and/or six months' imprisonment.



Or, depending on what's involved, the offence of Threatening Behaviour. My point is that the law is already in place to deal with threats against anyone taking such decisions. There are obviously more serious charges for more serious attempts at coercion.


I am not in a position to dispute this and I hope it is as you say - not that I have any reason to disbelieve you.

Some people may not be able to apply it for one reason or another. For instance, how certain can we be that the Muslim communities, who are free to operate their own courts to exercise their religious laws, are not applying illegal laws.

OpenMind;1207375 wrote: I am not in a position to dispute this and I hope it is as you say - not that I have any reason to disbelieve you.

Some people may not be able to apply it for one reason or another. For instance, how certain can we be that the Muslim communities, who are free to operate their own courts to exercise their religious laws, are not applying illegal laws.


If you can show me any Muslim court in the UK which considers criminal charges I'd be grateful. To the best of my knowledge they consist solely of Arbitration Tribunals and make their judgements on civil issues enforced by British legislation. Any decision is subject to superior British courts of appeal in exactly the same way as all other tribunals are. They're binding in law only where both parties to a case agree beforehand to be bound by the court's decision.

spot;1207361 wrote: If you read the article in the Independent that I linked to you could perhaps come back in here and explain why your perception differs so much from what's reported there. It's the same difference as black being white.


Having read your link it looks just like a bunch of teenage girls who are rebelling against their parents. A similar rebellion would be if Fifi Trixibelle and Peaches Geldof were to become nuns! :wah:

Tower Hamlets is an Islamic island within central London. Muslim children living there were probably born in this country or brought here at a young age and weren't brought up as strictly as they would have been in their own countries.

In the wake of the London bombings it was discovered that the middle-eastern terrorists were brainwashed in London mosques. What if that brainwashing continues? What if young British Muslim males are given a subliminal agenda? As one girl in your article said 'it is easier to fight your parents than your peers'. So what if these men are taught to say foul things to girls who can be bullied or coerced into taking the veil? Young men can be stirred up by fighting talk when they believe they are in a war. Young men cannot be stirred up by reading long dreary pages of the Koran. Young men on their own wouldn't be as strongly interested in religion if there wasn't someone in their background, with a powerful agenda, spurring them on.

Fundamentalists have tried terrorism. What if they're now fighting a secret war, using our own laws of freedom of speech to bring in Sharia Law, hoping one day that their laws are our laws?

A lot of 'what if's'. Sorry.

When I spoke of the women who wouldn't dare to speak out against their patriarchs, I really meant women who had spent their lives following strict Muslim laws of obedience not a handful of teenagers who were caught between two cultures.

OpenMind;1207368 wrote: Of course I've heard of this, Mel. It doesn't make them right just because they're commonly practised.


Agreed.

Rapunzel;1207389 wrote: Tower Hamlets is an Islamic island within central London. Muslim children living there were probably born in this country or brought here at a young age and weren't brought up as strictly as they would have been in their own countries.And a century ago Tower Hamlets was a Jewish island within central London. Jewish children living there were probably born in this country or brought here at a young age and weren't brought up as strictly as they would have been in their own countries. You might, for example, remember the Battle of Cable Street, or the Sydney Street Siege with Winston Churchill shooting a rifle at the anarchists holed up there.

What's more appropriately true is that Tower Hamlets is the island of refugee immigrants and has been for as long as anyone can remember.

spot;1207388 wrote: If you can show me any Muslim court in the UK which considers criminal charges I'd be grateful. To the best of my knowledge they consist solely of Arbitration Tribunals and make their judgements on civil issues enforced by British legislation. Any decision is subject to superior British courts of appeal in exactly the same way as all other tribunals are. They're binding in law only where both parties to a case agree beforehand to be bound by the court's decision.


I'm not sure if you're just stating the law as it applies or if you truly believe it or if this is said tongue-in-cheek when you know that it really doesn't happen that way.

I used to live in Temple Fortune in Golders Green in London. Golders Green is a strongly Jewish area. Temple Fortune is a strongly orthodox Jewish area. Jewish fundamentalists, if you like. One day a Jewish man killed a non-Jew. There was a local uproar because the orthodox Jews believed the guilty man should be handed over to them for trial and punishment according to their laws. Instead the Old Bill chucked the chap in the slammer and sent him down according to Her Majestys pleasure! There was a massive argument about it in the local papers as the Jews considered that Golders Green - and especially Temple Fortune - was the equivalent of their own little country within England. Their own Vatican State if you will. They wanted a 'Passport to Golders Green' instead of a 'Passport to Pimlico'!

Likewise, I'm sure there is no 'Muslim court in the UK' as such. If an Islamic father or brother wanted to punish their women folk I would imaging they would ask their Imam for guidance. And if their law stated that the womans conduct was punishable be death then they would kill her. It would not go before a judge and jury. It would be dealt with according to Sharia Law and all we would know is when her body was found bludgeoned and her story hit the newspapers (with her family denying all knowledge).

spot;1207394 wrote: And a century ago Tower Hamlets was a Jewish island within central London. Jewish children living there were probably born in this country or brought here at a young age and weren't brought up as strictly as they would have been in their own countries. You might, for example, remember the Battle of Cable Street, or the Sydney Street Siege with Winston Churchill shooting a rifle at the anarchists holed up there.

What's more appropriately true is that Tower Hamlets is the island of refugee immigrants and has been for as long as anyone can remember.


Before my time, sorry.

Geographically speaking, areas for refugee immigrants will always remain areas for refugee immigrants, even though the nationality of those immigrants may change.

Rapunzel;1207396 wrote: I'm not sure if you're just stating the law as it applies or if you truly believe it or if this is said tongue-in-cheek when you know that it really doesn't happen that way.

I used to live in Temple Fortune in Golders Green in London. Golders Green is a strongly Jewish area. Temple Fortune is a strongly orthodox Jewish area. Jewish fundamentalists, if you like. One day a Jewish man killed a non-Jew. There was a local uproar because the orthodox Jews believed the guilty man should be handed over to them for trial and punishment according to their laws. Instead the Old Bill chucked the chap in the slammer and sent him down according to Her Majestys pleasure! There was a massive argument about it in the local papers as the Jews considered that Golders Green - and especially Temple Fortune - was the equivalent of their own little country within England. Their own Vatican State if you will. They wanted a 'Passport to Golders Green' instead of a 'Passport to Pimlico'!

Likewise, I'm sure there is no 'Muslim court in the UK' as such. If an Islamic father or brother wanted to punish their women folk I would imaging they would ask their Imam for guidance. And if their law stated that the womans conduct was punishable be death then they would kill her. It would not go before a judge and jury. It would be dealt with according to Sharia Law and all we would know is when her body was found bludgeoned and her story hit the newspapers (with her family denying all knowledge).
Perhaps if you read Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts - Times Online we'll be able to exclude the bits there which aren't actually factual. It would help move the discussion forward.

I like the word 'discussion', it's so much better than 'argument'.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.


And so they come among us . . . . . . . . .

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”


I quite agree!

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.


Which just proves that our system of law-making is better than theirs.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.


A ridiculous punishment that in no way addresses the crime! One wonders WHY the women subsequently withdrew their complaints?? :sneaky:

HAVE YOUR SAY

Dear Sir

I think that this is outrageous, it is a sheer insult to every British living in these united kingdoms. It goes against all God’s Law, if then, Moslems are allowed their own courts then surely Christian’s should be allowed their own courts as well. Before we know it we will all be living under Moslem law. I suggest we vote out this government and never allow them back in again. How they have let down Britain, this should be the last straw and the nail in their coffin, get rid of this Labour Government. And get rid of this Moslem law with them.

William Kerwin

William Kerwin, Middlesbrough, Teeside


:yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap

Thank you. So, civil law decided at an arbitration court? No criminal jurisdiction?

And directly equivalent to the local Jewish courts in the UK?

I applaud the sentiment.

I reject the idea of govt. telling someone what they can or cant wear.

Rapunzel;1207435 wrote: [quote=spot]Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.Which just proves that our system of law-making is better than theirs.[/QUOTE]But it's all so much a matter of passing fad, inheritance law. For nine of the last ten centuries the law of England was for male primogeniture, with testators constrained by both law and the church to pass the family estate on death to the eldest male of the extended family and to the State to whatever extent the State chose to tax the proceeds. Who could even begin to guess what English law will demand in another hundred years?

Outraged of Tonbridge Wells wrote: Dear Sir

I think that this is outrageous, it is a sheer insult to every British living in these united kingdoms. It goes against all God’s Law, if then, Moslems are allowed their own courts then surely Christian’s should be allowed their own courts as well.Christians have them too. They're called Arbitration Courts.

I note though that the very idea of Christians turning to a court of law to decide their case is distinctly anti-Pauline. "If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers! The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?". That's not some Grand Ayatollah speaking, that's the Bible. If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment?

Both Paul and William Kerwin sound pretty much like Muslims, don't you think? Preferring to have their cases decided by co-religionists? God only knows why these Christians think they can have their cake and eat it too.

Rapunzel;1207344 wrote: Do they? :sneaky: Or are they brainwashed by their patriarchal families? :sneaky:


That's just it ~

the women believe that obeying their husbands wishes is the correct way to behave.

i don't have any links about this, but even in countries where folks ARE free, the Muslim people do not blend in,

even after YEARS of living in that society.

For Muslims, their religion IS their law ~ the ONLY law that counts ~

and i don't think anyone will ever seperate the two...

How does Indonesia fit in with that view? It's a predominantly Muslim country - there's a billion Muslims live there which must be half the world's total. Are you saying it's not a free society? I know quite a few people who've travelled there who'd say otherwise.

spot;1207787 wrote: How does Indonesia fit in with that view? It's a predominantly Muslim country - there's a billion Muslims live there which must be half the world's total. Are you saying it's not a free society? I know quite a few people who've travelled there who'd say otherwise.




Names...Dates !!

Nomad;1207790 wrote: Names...Dates !!


My apologies. A quarter of a billion Muslims, a quarter of the world's total, who form 86% of the population. The average number of years in full-time education is 11, 90% of all citizens over the age of 15 can read and write, life expectancy is 70 years and "Indonesia is now the world's third-largest democracy, the world's largest archipelagic state, and home to the world's largest Muslim population". All from the CIA World Factbook.

I know quite a few people who've travelled there who'd say otherwise.




Proof !

Nomad;1207805 wrote: Proof !


GUEST COMMENTS & TESTIMONIAL | HOLIDAY SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS | LOMBOK INDONESIA

Here we go again.

This is the topic that will not go away, now or ever I suspect.

I think that on one hand you can say its an interesting discussion on the balance of rights that citizen has, on the one hand to freely practice their religion, while on the other not offending non-coreligionists with their practices.

On the other hand, you can also see this as what happens when you try to introduce a large amount of people with an entirely different civilization and religion to our own, one that is exclusivist by nature and proletizing as well.

Its my own opinion that history shows that Islam and Christianity, or Judaism do not sit easily with each other in the same territory, and never have. That may be an uncomfortable truth for some people to take, but it is the truth.

Much of the history of European and Near Eastern civilization is driven by the ebb and flow of the conflict and competition between the 2 major monotheistic religions, and little seems to have changed, other than the Christian West's secularism and complete military and economic dominance hid this historical truth for the past 2 centuries or so.

Neither Islam or the Western world are monolithic, or easily pidgeon-holed as they are very large and diverse civilzations, but they are very different, they tend to define themselves in opposition to what the other one is and is not, and that will remain the case in my opinion.

The current fad for multiculturalism in the West will reverse back as people recoil from some of its more obvious follies, particularly in Western European Governments acquiscence, and in some cases, promotion, of large-scale muslim immigration, the consequences of which are still unfolding.

Galbally;1207817 wrote: Here we go again.







The current fad for multiculturalism in the West will reverse back as people recoil from some of its more obvious follies, particularly in Western European Governments acquiscence, and in some cases, promotion, of large-scale muslim immigration, the consequences of which are still unfolding.


I dont see how Dr. Here at least many different cultures have settled. Theyve come in droves and established communities. Russians, Somalis, Mexicans etc. For some theyve been here for decades and their children have children, their culture is alive and well as witnessed by the shops and churches, community centers. New York has Little Italy, LA has Chinatown.

In my town Little Somalia used to be a college hang out with retro theatres, head shops and music stores. Now its falafala, burqas and moques everywhere.

Theyre not going anywhere and as long as I can drive through my old stomping grounds and still consider myself a part of their community as theyve made themselves a part of our community its okee dokee with me.

Here's what the OP is talking about. And in France, not some London borough in England, or in Israel.

Attached files

AussiePam;1208726 wrote: Here's what the OP is talking about. And in France, not some London borough in England, or in Israel.


That's it. There's some in Bristol too. I don't think my daughter's actually spent a day in one but I'd not swear to it. It's all a matter of choice, that's what I reckon.

Why Israel? Where did that come from? I doubt whether anyone's seen one there, it's not part of anyone's cultural background round those parts.

I think that any country where women have spent years fighting for equal rights, and the right to vote should be threatened by this. I have three daughters and I would never let them be covered up or treated as third class within their own community.

At least France speaks up and says what other people will only think and are too fraid to say in fear of political correctness.

A telegraph article on the subject by Cassandra Jardine published 24/6/09.



Why the burka is part of Britain - Telegraph

Interesting article Open Mind. Some of the salient points for me from the article and commentary are:


Britain is heaven to live in - multiculturally speaking - beside France !!!

The Koran tells women to be modest. It does not tell them how. Legalistic interpretations came much later.

Men are expected to be modest too - but only need to cover themselves from belly button to knees.

Women are by nature so totally compellingly irresistible that they need to be covered up to protect the men from their apparently one track focus on sexual conquest. This is preferable to telling men to get a grip, another interest, a life.

English politicians are mealy mouthed. Mr Sarkozy is braver.

Women who don't cover up are just asking to be rapped. Rappers are bad and will be dealt with, but the women tempted them.

The UK and America focus on individual rights. France focuses more on the duties and responsibilities of citizenship.

In France political correctness has not replaced being able to say what you really think.

The current issue has muslims in dialogue with other muslims.

AussiePam;1209861 wrote: Interesting article Open Mind. Some of the salient points for me from the article and commentary are:


Britain is heaven to live in - multiculturally speaking - beside France !!!

The Koran tells women to be modest. It does not tell them how. Legalistic interpretations came much later.

Men are expected to be modest too - but only need to cover themselves from belly button to knees.

Women are by nature so totally compellingly irresistible that they need to be covered up to protect the men from their apparently one track focus on sexual conquest. This is preferable to telling men to get a grip, another interest, a life.

English politicians are mealy mouthed. Mr Sarkozy is braver.

Women who don't cover up are just asking to be rapped. Rappers are bad and will be dealt with, but the women tempted them.

The UK and America focus on individual rights. France focuses more on the duties and responsibilities of citizenship.

In France political correctness has not replaced being able to say what you really think.

The current issue has muslims in dialogue with other muslims.




I thought the views given by the Muslim women were interesting. They have also worn the burka as their right in defiance to those who have spoken out against them.



On the other hand, I hadn't thought of them being used by terrorists to escape identification and capture.



Back to the point of the thread, I still stand by my original statement: - "If sexual equality is the law of a particular country (such as the UK), the woman should be able to freely choose whether to wear a burqa or not. It should not be imposed on her for any reason. This can be translated as also saying that she has the freedom to choose to follow a religion of her choice or no religion at all. There cannot be a law for one group of people and a different law for others."

The difficulty, OM, may lie in assessing whether a woman has been able to choose freely. In many instances this seems to be in doubt.

In any society our freedoms are restricted. We surrender some rights to personal expresion for the sake of some socially perceived greater good. You can't walk naked down the street. You can't wear a motorcycle helmet into a bank. You can't crank your music system up at 3am. You can't have sex legally if you're under age. You can't ride a bike on a motorway.

-----

France's take is, as I wrote, not so much freedom of individual choice, but rather a perception of what it means to be a citizen of France.

AussiePam;1210057 wrote: The difficulty, OM, may lie in assessing whether a woman has been able to choose freely. In many instances this seems to be in doubt.



In any society our freedoms are restricted. We surrender some rights to personal expresion for the sake of some socially perceived greater good. You can't walk naked down the street. You can't wear a motorcycle helmet into a bank. You can't crank your music system up at 3am. You can't have sex legally if you're under age. You can't ride a bike on a motorway.



-----



France's take is, as I wrote, not so much freedom of individual choice, but rather a perception of what it means to be a citizen of France.


I agree. I am sure that there are women who are being forced to wear the burqa amongst many other things. The Mulsim religious laws, not their Koran, appears to treat women as sub-class citizens. There have been enough news items of Mulsim women being forced into arranged marriages.



I can't speak for France. But I know that England has lost its cultural identity as it has taken on so many immigrants with their respective cultures.

.. and there seem to be some people in Great Britain who consider the loss of cultural identity as something positively good.

There are people in Australia who think this way too. Others think opening the floodgates of multiculturalism was a terrible mistake. There is considerable discussion here now as to what it means to be Australian. What the privileges and duties of citizenship are - before it's too late

Mr Sarkozy is tossing such thoughts at his own countrymen and women.

As a last note here - all this seems so one-sided. What western woman is able freely to decide to walk around in most middle eastern countries in the clothes she'd normally wear to go shopping in the High Street? She may want to wear a cross or a sprig of mistletoe to express her religious views. She may wish to state loudly that she is an atheist. She may want to have a beer before dinner as she does back in Basingstoke. She may wish to wear a swimming costume on the beach.. She is likely to meet a tad of opposition to her attempts at personal freedom.

AussiePam;1210104 wrote: .. and there seem to be some people in Great Britain who consider the loss of cultural identity as something positively good.



There are people in Australia who think this way too. Others think opening the floodgates of multiculturalism was a terrible mistake. There is considerable discussion here now as to what it means to be Australian. What the privileges and duties of citizenship are - before it's too late



Mr Sarkozy is tossing such thoughts at his own countrymen and women.



As a last note here - all this seems so one-sided. What western woman is able freely to decide to walk around in most middle eastern countries in the clothes she'd normally wear to go shopping in the High Street? She may want to wear a cross or a sprig of mistletoe to express her religious views. She may wish to state loudly that she is an atheist. She may want to have a beer before dinner as she does back in Basingstoke. She may wish to wear a swimming costume on the beach.. She is likely to meet a tad of opposition to her attempts at personal freedom.


Well said Pam, as always. When I visited Tangiers I wore a long dress and not my usual shorts. I was advised by the tourist board that it would be frowned upon to dress inappropriately Stones are thrown at women who wear shorts by some citizens. Why couldn't I wear my shorts there?



It was 90F at the beach yesterday afternoon. There was a Muslim family enjoying the day along the boardwalk. The men and children were in shorts and t-shirts walking along the boardwalk tossing a ball. The women were in burkas standing by the car chatting. I don't think that they were enjoying the day.



I don't and will never accept the thoughts that a woman enjoys wearing a burka or being subservient to men...never...

AussiePam;1210104 wrote: .. and there seem to be some people in Great Britain who consider the loss of cultural identity as something positively good.



There are people in Australia who think this way too. Others think opening the floodgates of multiculturalism was a terrible mistake. There is considerable discussion here now as to what it means to be Australian. What the privileges and duties of citizenship are - before it's too late



Mr Sarkozy is tossing such thoughts at his own countrymen and women.



As a last note here - all this seems so one-sided. What western woman is able freely to decide to walk around in most middle eastern countries in the clothes she'd normally wear to go shopping in the High Street? She may want to wear a cross or a sprig of mistletoe to express her religious views. She may wish to state loudly that she is an atheist. She may want to have a beer before dinner as she does back in Basingstoke. She may wish to wear a swimming costume on the beach.. She is likely to meet a tad of opposition to her attempts at personal freedom.


There is always someone some where, who disapproves. There are so many people who will argue for what is wrong in society. I like to live and let live.

In England today, I feel that my country has been taken away from me. My immigrant brethren have more rights than me in this country that I grew up once feeling proud of.

Because I go to work and use my hands to fabricate those things that are essential to the economy, I am considered to be a white scabrous piece of turd. I use my hands to make things and that is disgusting. This is even reflected in my earnings which have been reduced dramatically in real terms over the last two years. I am white trash.



This is also the reason why no one cares about this country. England. It was once an empire. Now it's just a joke. You can no longer go to Parliament and speak your mind. So much for the House of Commons.



Ok. Rant over.

OpenMind;1210320 wrote: There is always someone some where, who disapproves. There are so many people who will argue for what is wrong in society. I like to live and let live.

In England today, I feel that my country has been taken away from me. My immigrant brethren have more rights than me in this country that I grew up once feeling proud of.

Because I go to work and use my hands to fabricate those things that are essential to the economy, I am considered to be a white scabrous piece of turd. I use my hands to make things and that is disgusting. This is even reflected in my earnings which have been reduced dramatically in real terms over the last two years. I am white trash.



This is also the reason why no one cares about this country. England. It was once an empire. Now it's just a joke. You can no longer go to Parliament and speak your mind. So much for the House of Commons.



Ok. Rant over.


Oh, OpenMind:-4,



I'm sorry that you're feeling this way. I feel the same about my country at times. Certain groups of people here are treated better than the everyday Joe who works their tail off each and everyday.



You are not white trash...don't say that please. Our economy is very bad these last few years and most of us are suffering terribly.



"You take the day for what's it worth and do the best you can."



I'm gonna cyber over to the UK and beat your butt if I hear anymore talk like this:D:rolleyes: I mean it:driving: