Well done Belgium. Veil banned

[Nuttybear]

I fully support this. Really wish the liberals would put aside there protection of these men and free the women here. I vote for bring the same law here. I despise the veil and all it stands for. I saw a woman trip and fall because she could not see the kerb!!! Her husband/uncle/dad then had to guide her over the next kerb. I saw them again in the supermarket I so wanted to throw eggs at him but it would only make her plight worse. I know a minority want to wear the veil. Well, there are countries that support that decision. I know it might make matter worse for some but there must be a stand to free these women of this 13th century habit. Wearing of the veil is not in the Koran. All for modest dress, if you so wish but, unable to look around your world freely is wrong.

Ok maybe it was just Gorionine who didn't get it the first twenty times.

In which case, why have I seen only two comments, by supporters of the veil Gorionine, just now, and Saadia, earlier (who said she'd never thought of it like that before) which even acknowledge there is a genuine issue here.

The excuse for banning the veil is that people see it as unjust (gender) and a symbol of oppression and subservience. They also know that this woman is probably viewed as a 'sister' someone special for being so 'modest', usually this pride falls to her husband and I'm pretty sure he gets a pat on the back for having such a 'modest' wife. Then there's the club thing, the segregation, the outward display of 'I'm different' 'I'm not like you@, @don't speak to me' afterall the body and facial language is silenced by this attire. The person disappears and simply becomes a 'Muslim woman' and nothing more.

"Oh right I think the bnp are calling, they look for people just like you it's my country and they should act like us and all of that."

CagedBird that you wrote this earlier. Just reading back while waiting for the thread to load

That's exactly what I mean. I do behave appropriately in other countries -- always have, always will. I do fit in with the cultural norm. I do think that's the right thing to do. In what way does that make me, or anyone else who has that respect, or any native of these countries who believes I should have that respect, a raving racist?

mmr where can you tell me what page that was on. I remember writing it in response to somthing very specific that was said, but this thread is so blood long I can't find it.

scaryteacher that's interesting I was under the impression that in the case of divorce and civil matters that the jewish court could deal with it instead of the UK legal system, not as well as.

Will go and have a google.

it only applies if all parties agree to have it decided in that court, rather than the UK court, but the decicion made is then bindign in UK law.

I was sure it was instead of...

Just reading this document scary teacher you are quite right, it's amazing what you think you know sometimes. Always good to be reminded to check your facts before posting on here!

So the Jewish courts exists under "The Beth Din provides civil arbitration as an alternative to court action under the Arbitration Act (1996), which grants all British citizens the right to resolve civil disputes through arbitration."

Thus any religion of group or individual can avail themselves of this legisation, and carry out their civil business with a 3rd party chosen who is not the UK courts.

"Gorionine I am so suprised that you cannot support respecting another culture" I do not understand where that comes from, is it because I said I do not agree myself that women wearing a niquab are scary but do understand why someone would after ISNT post? Or because I said I understand her argument better than the one of people who say they do support a ban to free women from being their husband/another family member's subservant?

"I do not agree" as in "I can definitely understand that reason, do not agree with it but do understand."..

when Isnt articulated the argument about the cultural norm.

So you do agree with respecting the dominant culture? and would see veil wearing in Europe in the same light as bare shoulders in Pakistan?

I don't know Bird. It was miles away and long ago and I was waiting and there it was. Sorry can't tell you.

I have fallen into the trap of only internalising the more extreme posts and not noticing so much the ones which are more moderate - i think it is easily done on MN! so sorry about that.

I have really enjoyed this thread presonally. It has really made me analyse and pin down exactly what it is about seeing women who are fully veiled that makes me uncomfortable, and understand that it is not one strong thing but a combination of lots of things that join together to give a strong gut reaction.

I also think that it is fair to say that the majority of people uncomfrotable with this form of dress are probably (hopefully) feeling that way for similar reasons to me and not due to islamophobia.

I have also learnt of the many reasons that the different women on this thread have for being veiled and it has made me confront whether I do have any submerged negative assocations and feelings about Islam as a religion stemming from some of the things that are happening in its name around the world - and I have challeneged myself to understand (and I can understand) how people would find aspects of UK culture pretty grim.

All good stuff, and maybe more to come and I have learnt that I was misunderstanding the role of the beth din so that is all to the good.

Mrssceptic, Sorry, when I commented on ISNT post it was more that ,to me, women wearing a niqab are not threatening although I can understantd why people could think they are rather than a general comment on the cultural norm IYSWIM? sorry I was not clearer.

That's ok.

It's a very central question of double standards though. If you believe that a European person living or travelling or born in an Asian country needs to respect the cultural norm out of human courtesy then the inverse applies.

I really don't like the suggestion that the cultural norm should be deliberately subverted, as I wouldn't do this elsewhere.

What makes me more decisive on this is that not one person who supports wearing the veil has articulated or even accepted the principle of respect for the European cultural norm of the uncovered face.

Scaryteacher is right about the Bet Din.

The Catholic Church also runs matrimonial tribunals, that deal with annulment of marriages. This is absolutely separate from the civil divorce process. It is a process that attempts to ascertain whether conditions for a canonically valid marriage were present at the time of the marriage. In the US, possibly other countries too, the annulment process goes ahead only after a civil divorce has been granted.

Catholic Canon Law is a legal system for the church, governing its operations and matters related to sacraments, among other matters. Canon Law does not supersede the civil law of any given state, nor is it pushed as an alternative.

One law for all, the right to due process, and equality under the one law is the foundation of modern Western democracy. To suggest that a different law should apply to different groups in certain areas (family law, divorce, and child custody were the issues that the Canadian fundamentalists wanted to adjudicate themselves) was therefore one in the eye for the idea of democracy as well as womens' rights.

Women's roles and responsibilities in Islam are a flashpoint for conflict in the west and will remain so until the concept of women's equality under the law is fully understood by Islamic fundamentalists.

posie there's a thread looking for you

But mmr the "cultural norm" was subverted in the 80's with the whole punk movement. The "cultural norm" was subverted with the race riots. It was once the "cultural norm" to wear skirts that came to a certain length. The cultural norm is just the norm of the moment, not necessarily the norm of tomorrow.

I get that it isn't the norm. It most definitely isn't. But neither is multiple facial piercings, facial tattoos, women with bald heads, mohawks (less so now that Beckham had one). No one freaks out about that though - well, not any more!

And it isn't double standards if the whole ethos of the country is "we are better than them". Look how they treat their women, we don't do that, we have freedom of rights, freedom of dress, equality between men and women.

I think a lot of people who have a problem with this need to ask the very serious (and not necessarily prejudiced) question; Is the problem that some women cover their face, or that maybe more and more women will cover their face?

I agree with you theer caged bird, I was thinking about punks and so on (as originally raised by riven I think) while reading MMr's post.

There are some things which are tabboo in our society at the moment to the point that i can't imagine them becoming the norm in my lifetime.

So the question is whether the full veil is comparable with punk, or whether it is comparable to something much more unacceptable in our society like public nudity.

I would say that maybe other forms of religious dress - covering the hair, wearing certain clothing and so on are more comparable to the punk type movement. They are obviously very different and when they first appeared people were but now they have become interwoven into the normal landscape of our society (in certain parts of the country anyway, and different things in different parts as well probably).

So it comes back to this question of whetehr face covering is something that people will get the hang of, as they are exposed to it more and understand about it more and so on. Or whether covering the face is in our society such a tabboo that people will not feel at ease with it until such a time as I can walk down the high street with no clothes on ie All forms of dress are acceptable, no matter how extreme.

taboo that would be sorry

It's not really about any particular fashion or any particular style -- this isn't what the cultural norm is for me. Fashion and culture are two different things. Culture goes much deeper than fashion.

Culture in the West, western culture, has come to mean an assumption that religion is essentially a private matter, separate from civil life, not something to be waved in the faces of others, its symbols constantly on view, not something that makes aggressive demands about setting up religious courts as a perfectly valid alternative to the civil courts in any given country.

can I just add, i don't think muslim women who wear the veil are trying to subvert the cultural norms. They're just taking advantage of the freedoms of the country.

You have to realise, that if it is illegal, then Muslims have to abide with it (that's Islamic Law).

Yes, the cultural norm changes over time. The cultural norm in Europe, however, despite fashions, facial piercings, risque clothing at Royal Variety Shows, bald women, is the uncovered face. It is not a fashion. It is not just the current norm: it is the pervasive cultural norm. It is to do with communication, acceptance and integration, and it is most certainly double standards to allow different observation in different societies.

I have issues with the way many of the countries I've visited/lived in treat women. I have had discussions (with "locals" about whether I am allowed to judge: whether to act: whether to interfere, which it would be, as an outsider. You cannot assume that the ethos is "we are better than them". I don't even know what you are talking about here: private views may be held but the common, publicly expressed view should be that of respect. Through respect, understanding may be gained.

Through all this I have understood and respected that there is little to be gained by hostility and defiance of the cultural norm.

Again, I have seen no acceptance, understanding or attempt at understanding of this cultural norm by veil wearers.

Why is that question relevant?

Taking advantage of the freedoms of a country to wear clothing that is widely perceived in the west as an expression of women's inequality seems like the ultimate in irony, at best, or at worst a serious attempt to mock the western culture that makes that choice possible.

Isnt, I may as well put the view that if enough women go waltzing through Saudi Arabia's malls in miniskirts the locals will get the hang of it and change their entire cultural norm. Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?

Perhaps you missed the post where I said I understand France and Belgium but I would not vote for it in the UK.

Belgium is a relatively young country, divided and intensely conscious of its identity. France is a profoundly and determinedly secular society. We are neither of these: and in addition we are more sensitive (certainly than Belgium) about our dirty colonial past which gives us pause on issues of ethnic and religious tolerance.

But there is no call for pretending that the cultural norm of the uncovered face does not exist, or is just a fashion, and should be defied, subverted, ignored, shown no respect.

Math that last post of yours: I wanted to express that but I just couldn't articulate it. Well put.

but there are loads of religious groups in the UK whose dress is overtly religious and who are out and about in it

there are also plenty of examples where religious groups have made demands on other that have caused ructions in the general population as the demands were due to religious reasons and were seen to be out of step/an imposition on everyone else.

i can think of two offhand I am sure there are lots more

This is not about religious dress, which is given plenty of allowance in schools, in hospital gear, in police uniforms, crash helmets etc etc.

It is about the covered face.