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.

I used to wear a home-knitted balaclava not a good look.

"Our tolerance is famous: as giveitago points out. It deserves respect in return, not contempt."

But that's the thing it isn't contempt. People who wear the veil are using the freedom's of the country to wear it. They're not contemptuos (for the most part I'd assume)

Posie again I think your last post at 8:33 was quite spot on. It is for moderate muslims to come out and say something. The thing is moderate muslims are often not heard because a) they don't make exciting paper selling headlines or television and b) they're often just going about their business in life, not bothering anybody or causing any strife.

nottirednow I did point that out. They were season appropriate but not any more. When I was younger twas was only surrounded by the working class

"Anyone else is always going to be vulnerable to accusations of racism and Islamophobia, if this thread is anything to go by."

The thing is mmr, it just isn't acceptable to say, I'm uncomfortable with it and want it to be banned but I don't know why. If someone is uncomfortable with it, then that's fair enough but you need to be articulate it or at least be able to give more information if you want people to agree with you. It's the whole purpose of a debate. To get someone to agree with you.

I don't see one place that you have been accused of being racist (which isn't applicable because Muslim isn't a race) or being Islamophobic.

And also it isn't always untrue that someone is being prejudice.

It is also true that moderate Muslims are not being heard because their voices are being drowned out by very aggressive fundamentalists with endless money behind them. Unitarian Wahhabism seeks the end of moderate Islam as well as western infidelism. There is no live and let live in this brand of Islam.

Also small groups like Islam4UK are great for newspaper sales so you give them more publicity to sell readers to advertisers...sex sells, fear sells better...

"We need more prominent moderate Muslims to rise up and become the speakers for Islam, we need to hear more from these Muslims so they become loudest voices"

Media doesn't give them much of a voice.The media is quite attacking so they have to be quite defenstive and justfy their culture in a way I never have to justify mine.

"But that's the thing it isn't contempt. People who wear the veil are using the freedom's of the country to wear it."

That's twisted. I am free in law to have bare shoulders and wear mini skirts in many parts of the world where it would be contemptuous of local morees to do so.

"I don't see one place that you have been accused of being racist (which isn't applicable because Muslim isn't a race) or being Islamophobic."

Others have, most definitely: the word Islamophobic has been used and the BNP has been raised (by you, I think).

And it is acceptable to say I'm uncomfortable with it and don't like it: although if you are campaigning for a ban you need more cogent reasons than that (which Belgium and France offer).

Most definitely it is enough to say "I'm uncomfortable with it without being able to articulate why." Particularly when most people in Britain have some knowledge of the fundamentalism of Saudi Arabia, of the Taliban, and have seen the hypocrisy, which you so rightly deplore, of the covered woman and the very uncovered man. So there is no need to throw around accusations of racism and Islamophobia and even "unacceptability" without even attempting to understand what lies behind it.

Unless of course you think most of the rest of the world is also "unacceptably" protective of their cultural norms.

"I think the UK actually has a very very strong identity - people who are it know what it means and what its all about"

who are the 'it' in this case? If you mean British, well I am and I'm unsure what it is above and beyond a Christian country and stuff about being 'fair' etc. Tolerlant, I guess, but I'm not a fan of that word.

What else? I genuinely interested to know.

The ban has been passed

link

Maybe it's possible to define 'British' in terms of what it's not -- it's not a country that strives to be a unitarian community whose goal is to be the embodiment of the law of God, whose cultural roots and religious impulses lie in the Saudi Arabian desert. It's not a country whose notion of justice involves severing of limbs or flogging. It's not a country where participation in democratic politics is shunned because this has no precedent in 7th century tribal society of the aforementioned desert and is therefore against the law of God.

It's not a country whose notion of the 'place' of women involves the idea of being property or women's protection by men from men. It's not a country where girls are prevented from escaping from a burning building on account of their uncovered faces (they were saved from the terrible sin of showing their faces in public, though...) It's not the bizarro world of Saudi Arabia. It's not an authoritarian theocracy.

Nothing so threatens Islamic extremists' concept of what is right and good as much as the freedom western women enjoy (freedom which is ours because of the secular concept of human rights for all, and which is enshrined in the legal systems of our secular society.) That is plain from the strictures imposed on women in Wahhabi-dominated societies.

The total repudiation of the west is also seen in the spectacularly inappropriate 'education' of young Saudi Arabian and Afghan men, who are completely unqualified to participate in the modern world economy after passing through Wahhabi-dominated schools. Total rejection of the west and all its works and promises is the hallmark of the Taliban and the Wahhabis; the fully veiled woman is the embodiment of this rejection. The undereducated young man who thinks voting is against the law of God while bombing the Tube is going to get him to Heaven is another.

I saw your name and clicked to see what you would say, Math. Very interesting.

I pondered this question and thought there were two answers that immediately sprang to mind.

One, in relation to this debate, is that it is certainly a country of the uncovered face.

The other was to say: ask a foreigner what we stand for. Sometimes one's national stereotype can be quite revealing, once discussed, and either rejected or sometimes seriously considered to have some grains of truth.

It's much more simplistic than math's answer of course

I give up on Amnesty sometimes.

No doubt there'll be protests on the streets of Belgium.

OK, so we're not a country that aspires to arabic culture. But I'm still none the wiser - we could say that we're not like Saudi - we could say we are not like Germany or like France or Italy or the USA. If we can identify what it is we are NOT - (and we do see alot of we are not like the USA) then we should be able to glean what we are?

Why do you give up on amnesty MMR?

It's a different thread giveitago: math was talking about it in relation to this thread but I think it's a great idea to start a new thread on it. Would be very interesting.

Amensty condemns the ban pretty wholeheartedly: it would be better sitting on the fence. There are cogent arguments for free thinking liberals to repudiate the burkha and the niqab (math has been particularly pithy) so Amnesty would do better to be more considered in its opinion. It's found itself defending a symbol of oppression.

Read today that the Netherlands are on the list for considering a ban. They are known as pretty much the most liberal country in Europe, no? This supports mmrsceptic in the summation of the thread:

'There are cogent arguments for free thinking liberals to repudiate the burkha and the niqab'

No sorry mmr - but we're talking about British and unbritish on many posts. That's not another thread in in relation to covered faces.

So again, if something is unBritish - what is British?

Oh well. I'm not. As far as I'm concerned this is about the covered face and Europe wide cultural norms.

I suspect you are thinking that if someone can't articulate what it is to be British they have no right to object to the veil?

If you are, that's balderdash in my opinion, but maybe you aren't. It just seems to be an implication.

Excellent post, Mathanxiety

No I'm not suggesting that somesome who cannot identify what British cannot object to something they feel is non british.

But I'd say this - society is ever changing.

Attitudes to people of other cultures have changed dramatically over the years as well.

I respect your view and I respect that it's something you feel. I personally have no issues with the veil as long as the woman wants to wear it. If she doesnt, then I take issue. I don't associate it with any crime but I can understand why some people do.

My view might change if someone were to persuade me with a strong argument but as veil wearers are a small minority of a minority religion in the UK, I really have no issues.

So Belgium has banned it eh? OK so I wonder whether they are now looking forward to a more emancipated female population or possibly a drop in any form of religious extremism.

'British' is not that different from German or Italian or American or Australian. There's a lot more in common between Britain and other western European countries or cultures than there is in common with Islamic fundamentalism. It's possible we take so much of our secular humanist background for granted that we find it hard to pin it down.

As western women, especially, we really have absolutely no idea what life is like for women elsewhere who do not have the basic human rights that we enjoy in such a carefree manner. (I do think Amnesty would be doing a more useful job if it was focusing on the lives of truly oppressed women).

I think the essence of what it means to be British (or western in general) is the notion of a fair justice system that incorporates the ideal of basic human rights for all -- in the case of Britain, the common law and the struggle to define rights (beginning with Magna Carta) to arrive at our current notion of fairness and justice has gone on for centuries.

The idea of the rule of Law, and what that Law actually fosters in society and enshrines from British history and experience, is what makes Britain Britain. Law based on centuries of tradition and agreed-upon values is the essence of Britain, imo. (This is why the attempt to set up something completely different in Canada to focus on matters relating to the status of men and women was so noteworthy to me, and why it said so much to me wrt the focus of Islamic fundamentalism.)

OK British is 'western' then.

The reason I ask is that I have had this convo with various members of my (non english side) family - and they would just counteract - 'what is British culture'. Gotta say I had no idea how to respond.

Had I given them your answer they definately would have said to me 'not an answer'.

I'm not trying to point score I'm genuinely interested. I'm married to an EU national and when I go to his country I see his culture as defined - it's about family, catholicism, tradition, female beauty and masculinity.

What foreigners think about us is quite specific (and not very flattering) - fat butch women, drunk people, violence and no family. That's what I hear all the time when I'm overseas. That's how we are portrayed in overseas media.

On top of that there is large section of thw world that views us as 'lacking culture' as they expect a Christian country but are surprised when they do see it. For many culture = religion. I see it in my dh's home country but not in ours.

I find it almost impossible to specify what is British.

I don't think it's entirely 'British is western'. British is a basic assumption of the Rule of Law, Law meaning something secular whose aim is human happiness here on earth, not the law of god enforced by religious police who do not tolerate the existence or even the sight of anyone who challenges their assumptions.

The image of Britain that you mention is surface level only, and it's an image rather than a grasp of what's essential. The image of Britain you gave is by no means universal -- the US, for instance has a far different view of Britain that is not affected by football hooliganism, behaviour of British tourists at Spanish resorts, or lad and ladette culture. In the US, Britain is seen as the bastion of the stiff upper lip, terrible food, civilised charm and manners, quaintness, steadiness, and overall respect for traditions such as the monarchy. Again, this is an image and not reality, and it comes from the sort of British TV that Americans watch (think Hyacinth Bucket).

Law and basic assumptions about individual liberty and ideas about the whole purpose of life here on earth, as enshrined in the law go much deeper than the surface image.

I suppose it has been subverted and diluted.

Fifty years ago I would have used words like polite: patriotic: family-focussed: well-educated: unwilling to show emotion (the British stiff upper lip!): creative: and based on a Christian foundation.

The family appears to be done for, courtesy of the welfare state: Christians appear to be persecuted: Princess Diana's funeral dealt a fatal blow to the stiff upper lip: Labour has soundly degraded education: political correctness has done for patriotism.

So, I guess you win.

Actually my lip is curling at the implicit praise for the pride in another other national identity -- accompanied by your approval for the subversion of possibly our one last universal cultural norm. You couldn't be more perverse if you tried.

Mmr - excuse me?

What is my implicit praise for the pride in another national identity -what ARE you one about ie which one are you talking about? No bloody idea.

What is my approval for the subversion of the possibly one OF our last universal cutural norms. WHAT IS IT. No idea.

HOW am I peverse?