''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
I seem to recall St Paul saying something like “if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn” and certainly in my youth women normally wore hats in Church, although not so much in Chapel.
If you don't wear a hat, you need to shave your bits????
st.paul's a tit. Jesus was much better
Ooof. A very tricky subject there, Mr. Bandier, and so I shall tip toe. I have never trusted St. Paul ever since I was a teenager (that Damascene conversion just seemed too pat, too convenient). A lot of what we now call Christianity seems to have come from Paul (and others, to be fair) far more than from Jesus. The councils of the early church are full of theological dispute (what books should be included in the new testament, why did we get the ones we have?). Human nature, politics and powers struggles just had to be involved.
On the strictures on living, my view is that they were, in the main, based on best practice as known at the time. Probably not a good idea to eat shellfish when your sewer was the river that flowed over the shellfish beds. Halal/Kosher may have been the most humane slaughter at the time. And so on and so forth for all sorts of religious rules on living. Over a couple of thousand years, or more, technology has moved on and many rules still exist only because the religious establishments haven't.
''I'm interested to know where this new French law leaves people who go diving. There's very little difference between the burqini and a diver's wetsuit, from what I can see.''
Try diving in a burkini in Britain in January, and you will see the difference. That's if the exposure isn;t too bad.
A diving suit traps a layer of water between it and your skin, which the body warms up. Ie It looks like that to perform a function.
What is the Burkini's function?
Obviously there is a difference, but not that great in visual terms. Do people ever start off on diving trips from a beach? Will they be allowed to wear their wetsuits before they are away from the shore?
If they are, then erstwhile burqini wearers can presumably change to a wetsuit and avoid prosecution.
At a cost in terms of comfort.
For me the dividing line (if you'll exclude the pun) is the face. Cover your hair and wear a three piece suit on the beach for all I care. But covering the face sets you apart from society.
What about hoodies? They're often worn so as to cover most of the face.
and why do you think they are worn that way?
For fashion reasons and to conceal identity. You want to ban them too?
I don't want to ban the Islamic dress that doesn't cover the fact, but look if you want to live in a country where an increasing amount of society walk around in costumes which yell "Don't talk to me, I am not like you" then that's your choice, I don't.
''I'm interested to know where this new French law leaves people who go diving. There's very little difference between the burqini and a diver's wetsuit, from what I can see.''
Try diving in a burkini in Britain in January, and you will see the difference. That's if the exposure isn;t too bad.
A diving suit traps a layer of water between it and your skin, which the body warms up. Ie It looks like that to perform a function.
What is the Burkini's function?
Obviously there is a difference, but not that great in visual terms. Do people ever start off on diving trips from a beach? Will they be allowed to wear their wetsuits before they are away from the shore?
If they are, then erstwhile burqini wearers can presumably change to a wetsuit and avoid prosecution.
At a cost in terms of comfort.
For me the dividing line (if you'll exclude the pun) is the face. Cover your hair and wear a three piece suit on the beach for all I care. But covering the face sets you apart from society.
What about hoodies? They're often worn so as to cover most of the face.
And are banned in many shopping centres as a result.
I've nothing against demanding that all people follow the rule of law.
But when we make laws dictating what exactly people are permitted to wear, it's a good sign that we are drifting away from being a tolerant society. Let's not follow the French example.
Is Islamism "tolerant"?
As practised in most countries, no. Why do you ask?
The burkini is offensive as an idea and on the eyes.
Why shouldn't people be allowed to wear what they want?
Sure; ban covering the face in schools, or in banks, or court, etc.
But it's not the job of the government to tell the citizens what they should or should not wear.
Exactly.
In general, I agree, save for obvious times when the government does dictate clothing on grounds of safety, etc...
But, let's play a thought game. If and when 'invisibility camouflage' becomes reality, should people be allowed to wear it in public? When entering a bank? Or government offices? What limits should be placed on who and where it can be worn?
I've nothing against demanding that all people follow the rule of law.
But when we make laws dictating what exactly people are permitted to wear, it's a good sign that we are drifting away from being a tolerant society. Let's not follow the French example.
Is Islamism "tolerant"?
As practised in most countries, no. Why do you ask?
I wonder why you're so sympathetic to the intolerant.
''I'm interested to know where this new French law leaves people who go diving. There's very little difference between the burqini and a diver's wetsuit, from what I can see.''
Try diving in a burkini in Britain in January, and you will see the difference. That's if the exposure isn;t too bad.
A diving suit traps a layer of water between it and your skin, which the body warms up. Ie It looks like that to perform a function.
What is the Burkini's function?
Obviously there is a difference, but not that great in visual terms. Do people ever start off on diving trips from a beach? Will they be allowed to wear their wetsuits before they are away from the shore?
If they are, then erstwhile burqini wearers can presumably change to a wetsuit and avoid prosecution.
At a cost in terms of comfort.
For me the dividing line (if you'll exclude the pun) is the face. Cover your hair and wear a three piece suit on the beach for all I care. But covering the face sets you apart from society.
What about hoodies? They're often worn so as to cover most of the face.
And are banned in many shopping centres as a result.
Would you have them banned by law? Do you think people should be obliged to reveal their identity at all times?
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
I seem to recall St Paul saying something like “if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn” and certainly in my youth women normally wore hats in Church, although not so much in Chapel.
If you don't wear a hat, you need to shave your bits????
It's a shame the Greeks got hold of early Christianity. They were misogynistic to the core.
Nothing Greek about Paul, except that he wrote in that language. He was a Syrian jew.
I've nothing against demanding that all people follow the rule of law.
But when we make laws dictating what exactly people are permitted to wear, it's a good sign that we are drifting away from being a tolerant society. Let's not follow the French example.
The burkini is offensive as an idea and on the eyes.
Why shouldn't people be allowed to wear what they want?
Sure; ban covering the face in schools, or in banks, or court, etc.
But it's not the job of the government to tell the citizens what they should or should not wear.
Seems to me from what I understand that the Ataturk generally had the right idea (although it was only after revolution 1970s that it was made across genders). No place for this stuff in courts, government, schools, etc, but if you want to do that in your own personal life go ahead.
I'd add shops & public transport as well. But if you want to wear one in your own house or church then go for it.
I've nothing against demanding that all people follow the rule of law.
But when we make laws dictating what exactly people are permitted to wear, it's a good sign that we are drifting away from being a tolerant society. Let's not follow the French example.
Is Islamism "tolerant"?
As practised in most countries, no. Why do you ask?
I wonder why you're so sympathetic to the intolerant.
I've nothing against demanding that all people follow the rule of law.
But when we make laws dictating what exactly people are permitted to wear, it's a good sign that we are drifting away from being a tolerant society. Let's not follow the French example.
Is Islamism "tolerant"?
As practised in most countries, no. Why do you ask?
I wonder why you're so sympathetic to the intolerant.
I'm not being sympathetic. I'm being tolerant</>.
Tolerance of interlorance is stupid. It had proved to be so since the beginning of time.
I've nothing against demanding that all people follow the rule of law.
But when we make laws dictating what exactly people are permitted to wear, it's a good sign that we are drifting away from being a tolerant society. Let's not follow the French example.
I must admit, when I go shopping and I see a woman in a burqa browsing the fruit and vegetable aisle whilst her daughter - dressed mostly in pink - plays around with a Spongebob Squarepants figurine set, I struggle to see the oppression.
You have no right not to be offended; isn't that what we all said when there was the Mohammed cartoons?
Remind me which religion tries to dictate what cartoons we draw, what books we read, what clothes we wear, what food we eat, how many times a day we pray - need I go on?
I must admit, when I go shopping and I see a woman in a burqa browsing the fruit and vegetable aisle whilst her daughter - dressed mostly in pink - plays around with a Spongebob Squarepants figurine set, I struggle to see the oppression.
I must admit, when I go shopping and I see a woman in a burqa browsing the fruit and vegetable aisle whilst her daughter - dressed mostly in pink - plays around with a Spongebob Squarepants figurine set, I struggle to see the oppression.
She could be a nanny on a zero hours contract, or worse - a modern slave. Assume nothing.
''I'm interested to know where this new French law leaves people who go diving. There's very little difference between the burqini and a diver's wetsuit, from what I can see.''
Try diving in a burkini in Britain in January, and you will see the difference. That's if the exposure isn;t too bad.
A diving suit traps a layer of water between it and your skin, which the body warms up. Ie It looks like that to perform a function.
What is the Burkini's function?
Obviously there is a difference, but not that great in visual terms. Do people ever start off on diving trips from a beach? Will they be allowed to wear their wetsuits before they are away from the shore?
If they are, then erstwhile burqini wearers can presumably change to a wetsuit and avoid prosecution.
At a cost in terms of comfort.
For me the dividing line (if you'll exclude the pun) is the face. Cover your hair and wear a three piece suit on the beach for all I care. But covering the face sets you apart from society.
I agree with that dividing line, given the usual exceptions.
However, since swimming-costume manufacturers (I am told) produce 'swimwear' which is totally impractical for swimming in*, there is presumably no reason why 'diver wetsuits' have to be made of a 'practical' material. All a matter of legal definition.
*Shapely friends tell me such 'swimwear' comes off if you swim in it.
You have no right not to be offended; isn't that what we all said when there was the Mohammed cartoons?
Remind me which religion tries to dictate what cartoons we draw, what books we read, what clothes we wear, what food we eat, how many times a day we pray - need I go on?
You seem inexplicably determined that we should replicate their intolerance.
The religion of France is for women to wear pretty much zilch on the beaches, I can see why they have banned the burkini tbh. It is part of their cultural heritage..
You have no right not to be offended; isn't that what we all said when there was the Mohammed cartoons?
Remind me which religion tries to dictate what cartoons we draw, what books we read, what clothes we wear, what food we eat, how many times a day we pray - need I go on?
You seem inexplicably determined that we should replicate their intolerance.
No, it is you who seems to be tolerating the intolerant.
I must admit, when I go shopping and I see a woman in a burqa browsing the fruit and vegetable aisle whilst her daughter - dressed mostly in pink - plays around with a Spongebob Squarepants figurine set, I struggle to see the oppression.
She could be a nanny on a zero hours contract, or worse - a modern slave. Assume nothing.
I mean, the younger girl did describe her as "mum", but you never know.
You have no right not to be offended; isn't that what we all said when there was the Mohammed cartoons?
Remind me which religion tries to dictate what cartoons we draw, what books we read, what clothes we wear, what food we eat, how many times a day we pray - need I go on?
You seem inexplicably determined that we should replicate their intolerance.
No, it is you who seems to be tolerating the intolerant.
Well, I guess I'm tolerating your intolerant attitude towards beachwear, but I'd certainly oppose making it law.
I must admit, when I go shopping and I see a woman in a burqa browsing the fruit and vegetable aisle whilst her daughter - dressed mostly in pink - plays around with a Spongebob Squarepants figurine set, I struggle to see the oppression.
She could be a nanny on a zero hours contract, or worse - a modern slave. Assume nothing.
I mean, the younger girl did describe her as "mum", but you never know.
So it was an English speaking mother in a burqa? Could you see her ethnicity?
''I'm interested to know where this new French law leaves people who go diving. There's very little difference between the burqini and a diver's wetsuit, from what I can see.''
Try diving in a burkini in Britain in January, and you will see the difference. That's if the exposure isn;t too bad.
A diving suit traps a layer of water between it and your skin, which the body warms up. Ie It looks like that to perform a function.
What is the Burkini's function?
Obviously there is a difference, but not that great in visual terms. Do people ever start off on diving trips from a beach? Will they be allowed to wear their wetsuits before they are away from the shore?
If they are, then erstwhile burqini wearers can presumably change to a wetsuit and avoid prosecution.
At a cost in terms of comfort.
For me the dividing line (if you'll exclude the pun) is the face. Cover your hair and wear a three piece suit on the beach for all I care. But covering the face sets you apart from society.
What about hoodies? They're often worn so as to cover most of the face.
And are banned in many shopping centres as a result.
Would you have them banned by law? Do you think people should be obliged to reveal their identity at all times?
Hoodies don't separate in the same way.
I'd be fine banning gang bandanas as well.
Additionally there are times when the public interest takes precedence over the private interest. This is one of those occasions.
When Mrs J was teaching at a western-leaning uni in Turkey, she was obliged to follow the law that banned headscarves for students or staff. A few young women chose to wear them during lectures.
She had a choice: report them and get them thrown off the course, hence depriving them of an education as they would not attend without the scarf, or risk losing her job.
Such a ban puts pressure both on people who wish to wear such garb, and the people who officially interact with them.
I'm all for bans where it makes sense: if you are not allowed to wear a crash-helmet when you enter a bank, the same should be true for the burka.
I find the burka deeply offensive, the niqab less so, and the hijab hardly bothers me at all - many English ladies would wear a headscarf before WWII.
However, I don't believe they should be banned just because I find them offensive. They should only be banned in circumstances where there is clear logic: e.g. in courts of law and other such situations, or in children under 16 or 18.
''I'm interested to know where this new French law leaves people who go diving. There's very little difference between the burqini and a diver's wetsuit, from what I can see.''
Try diving in a burkini in Britain in January, and you will see the difference. That's if the exposure isn;t too bad.
A diving suit traps a layer of water between it and your skin, which the body warms up. Ie It looks like that to perform a function.
What is the Burkini's function?
Obviously there is a difference, but not that great in visual terms. Do people ever start off on diving trips from a beach? Will they be allowed to wear their wetsuits before they are away from the shore?
If they are, then erstwhile burqini wearers can presumably change to a wetsuit and avoid prosecution.
At a cost in terms of comfort.
For me the dividing line (if you'll exclude the pun) is the face. Cover your hair and wear a three piece suit on the beach for all I care. But covering the face sets you apart from society.
What about hoodies? They're often worn so as to cover most of the face.
And are banned in many shopping centres as a result.
Would you have them banned by law? Do you think people should be obliged to reveal their identity at all times?
Hoodies don't separate in the same way.
I'd be fine banning gang bandanas as well.
Additionally there are times when the public interest takes precedence over the private interest. This is one of those occasions.
I'm struggling to see the public interest in dictating which beachwear is acceptable.
And can you guarantee that their menfolk have not forced them to do so? I'm not sure they deserve the benefit of the doubt any more.
I can't guarantee than any man isn't forcing any woman to wear anything.
On the other hand Mrs JackW often chooses my garb that any dissent on my part results in the female arched eyebrow known to kill at a hundred paces.
Indeed. This is about banning a tool of oppression.
Since @FeersumEnjineeya is so keen with parallels how would you feel about a gang of men in loinclitgs and shackled walking through the street. Even if they insisted it was free will.
I must admit, when I go shopping and I see a woman in a burqa browsing the fruit and vegetable aisle whilst her daughter - dressed mostly in pink - plays around with a Spongebob Squarepants figurine set, I struggle to see the oppression.
She could be a nanny on a zero hours contract, or worse - a modern slave. Assume nothing.
I mean, the younger girl did describe her as "mum", but you never know.
So it was an English speaking mother in a burqa? Could you see her ethnicity?
The mother's, no. In fact if I recall correctly they were codeswitching, but it wasn't like a I followed them round. I only recall because it was quite a scene!
''I'm interested to know where this new French law leaves people who go diving. There's very little difference between the burqini and a diver's wetsuit, from what I can see.''
Try diving in a burkini in Britain in January, and you will see the difference. That's if the exposure isn;t too bad.
A diving suit traps a layer of water between it and your skin, which the body warms up. Ie It looks like that to perform a function.
What is the Burkini's function?
Obviously there is a difference, but not that great in visual terms. Do people ever start off on diving trips from a beach? Will they be allowed to wear their wetsuits before they are away from the shore?
If they are, then erstwhile burqini wearers can presumably change to a wetsuit and avoid prosecution.
At a cost in terms of comfort.
For me the dividing line (if you'll exclude the pun) is the face. Cover your hair and wear a three piece suit on the beach for all I care. But covering the face sets you apart from society.
What about hoodies? They're often worn so as to cover most of the face.
And are banned in many shopping centres as a result.
Would you have them banned by law? Do you think people should be obliged to reveal their identity at all times?
Hoodies don't separate in the same way.
I'd be fine banning gang bandanas as well.
Additionally there are times when the public interest takes precedence over the private interest. This is one of those occasions.
I'm struggling to see the public interest in dictating which beachwear is acceptable.
Agreed. That's why the conversation is about veils not burkinis
And can you guarantee that their menfolk have not forced them to do so? I'm not sure they deserve the benefit of the doubt any more.
I can't guarantee than any man isn't forcing any woman to wear anything.
On the other hand Mrs JackW often chooses my garb that any dissent on my part results in the female arched eyebrow known to kill at a hundred paces.
Indeed. This is about banning a tool of oppression.
Since @FeersumEnjineeya is so keen with parallels how would you feel about a gang of men in loinclitgs and shackled walking through the street. Even if they insisted it was free will.
Is this a serious question? I feel fine about it. I'd probably assume it was some sort of publicity stunt for a film.
You have no right not to be offended; isn't that what we all said when there was the Mohammed cartoons?
Remind me which religion tries to dictate what cartoons we draw, what books we read, what clothes we wear, what food we eat, how many times a day we pray - need I go on?
You seem inexplicably determined that we should replicate their intolerance.
No, it is you who seems to be tolerating the intolerant.
Well, I guess I'm tolerating your intolerant attitude towards beachwear, but I'd certainly oppose making it law.
Islamism is an intolerant religion, and you are sympathetic towards it. I'm not calling for bans on cartoons and books, etc.
I've nothing against demanding that all people follow the rule of law.
But when we make laws dictating what exactly people are permitted to wear, it's a good sign that we are drifting away from being a tolerant society. Let's not follow the French example.
Is Islamism "tolerant"?
Are you?
I don't believe in dress codes.
The fact *you* don't believe in them doesn't mean they should be banned. I hope you agree with that.
Do you 'believe' in the dhoti korta, chunni or sari? If we ban the hijab, should the chunni also be banned?
I've nothing against demanding that all people follow the rule of law.
But when we make laws dictating what exactly people are permitted to wear, it's a good sign that we are drifting away from being a tolerant society. Let's not follow the French example.
Is Islamism "tolerant"?
Are you?
I don't believe in dress codes.
The fact *you* don't believe in them doesn't mean they should be banned. I hope you agree with that.
Do you 'believe' in the dhoti korta, chunni or sari? If we ban the hijab, should the chunni also be banned?
In my native Nudistan, we simply don't bother wearing anything on the beach!
Indeed. This is about banning a tool of oppression.
Since @FeersumEnjineeya is so keen with parallels how would you feel about a gang of men in loinclitgs and shackled walking through the street. Even if they insisted it was free will.
Isn't it a "tool of oppression" for you to determine what women are allow to wear?
On the latter I'm not as familiar as you with the dress code in Soho or some of TSE's parties ....
''I'm interested to know where this new French law leaves people who go diving. There's very little difference between the burqini and a diver's wetsuit, from what I can see.''
Try diving in a burkini in Britain in January, and you will see the difference. That's if the exposure isn;t too bad.
A diving suit traps a layer of water between it and your skin, which the body warms up. Ie It looks like that to perform a function.
What is the Burkini's function?
Obviously there is a difference, but not that great in visual terms. Do people ever start off on diving trips from a beach? Will they be allowed to wear their wetsuits before they are away from the shore?
If they are, then erstwhile burqini wearers can presumably change to a wetsuit and avoid prosecution.
At a cost in terms of comfort.
For me the dividing line (if you'll exclude the pun) is the face. Cover your hair and wear a three piece suit on the beach for all I care. But covering the face sets you apart from society.
What about hoodies? They're often worn so as to cover most of the face.
And are banned in many shopping centres as a result.
Would you have them banned by law? Do you think people should be obliged to reveal their identity at all times?
Hoodies don't separate in the same way.
I'd be fine banning gang bandanas as well.
Additionally there are times when the public interest takes precedence over the private interest. This is one of those occasions.
I'm struggling to see the public interest in dictating which beachwear is acceptable.
Agreed. That's why the conversation is about veils not burkinis
To be fair it does seem odd that a burkini is not allowed, as it doesn't cover the face
Saying that, if we had the trouble with Islamic extremism that France has recently, I am sure more people would empathise with the French peoples anxiety. They overwhelmingly supported the ban on the burqa 5 years ago pre Bataclan, pre Nice, Pre Hebdo...
It’s just deflection – the compulsory covering of the face which is so alien to western European ideals is the issue here, not national costumes, headphones and headscarves.
Not me, I think the niqab & burka should be cut right out though. And I can understand the French burkini ban, given their 'cultural history' on beachwear.
I think hijabs are just fine, since they aren't actually covering the face. I'd ban burkinis on the beach just on comfort grounds... it'd be bloody hot under all that.
You have no right not to be offended; isn't that what we all said when there was the Mohammed cartoons?
Remind me which religion tries to dictate what cartoons we draw, what books we read, what clothes we wear, what food we eat, how many times a day we pray - need I go on?
You seem inexplicably determined that we should replicate their intolerance.
No, it is you who seems to be tolerating the intolerant.
Well, I guess I'm tolerating your intolerant attitude towards beachwear, but I'd certainly oppose making it law.
Islamism is an intolerant religion, and you are sympathetic towards it. I'm not calling for bans on cartoons and books, etc.
My feelings towards Islam are irrelevant. I just don't believe in banning things because they may cause offence. Can't you see how hypocritical you're being?
You have no right not to be offended; isn't that what we all said when there was the Mohammed cartoons?
Remind me which religion tries to dictate what cartoons we draw, what books we read, what clothes we wear, what food we eat, how many times a day we pray - need I go on?
You seem inexplicably determined that we should replicate their intolerance.
No, it is you who seems to be tolerating the intolerant.
Well, I guess I'm tolerating your intolerant attitude towards beachwear, but I'd certainly oppose making it law.
Islamism is an intolerant religion, and you are sympathetic towards it. I'm not calling for bans on cartoons and books, etc.
My feelings towards Islam are irrelevant. I just don't believe in banning things because they may cause offence. Can't you see how hypocritical you're being?
I haven't called for a ban on anything in this thread, have I?
You have no right not to be offended; isn't that what we all said when there was the Mohammed cartoons?
Remind me which religion tries to dictate what cartoons we draw, what books we read, what clothes we wear, what food we eat, how many times a day we pray - need I go on?
You seem inexplicably determined that we should replicate their intolerance.
No, it is you who seems to be tolerating the intolerant.
Well, I guess I'm tolerating your intolerant attitude towards beachwear, but I'd certainly oppose making it law.
Islamism is an intolerant religion, and you are sympathetic towards it. I'm not calling for bans on cartoons and books, etc.
My feelings towards Islam are irrelevant. I just don't believe in banning things because they may cause offence. Can't you see how hypocritical you're being?
I'm with you on this one. No one has the right not to be offended. Immigrant integration is a wicked problem, not susceptible to easy analysis or resolution.
I think hijabs are just fine, since they aren't actually covering the face. I'd ban burkinis on the beach just out of comfort grounds... it'd be bloody hot under all that.
Surely given typical UK weather they should be obligatory.
''I'm interested to know where this new French law leaves people who go diving. There's very little difference between the burqini and a diver's wetsuit, from what I can see.''
Try diving in a burkini in Britain in January, and you will see the difference. That's if the exposure isn;t too bad.
A diving suit traps a layer of water between it and your skin, which the body warms up. Ie It looks like that to perform a function.
What is the Burkini's function?
Obviously there is a difference, but not that great in visual terms. Do people ever start off on diving trips from a beach? Will they be allowed to wear their wetsuits before they are away from the shore?
If they are, then erstwhile burqini wearers can presumably change to a wetsuit and avoid prosecution.
At a cost in terms of comfort.
For me the dividing line (if you'll exclude the pun) is the face. Cover your hair and wear a three piece suit on the beach for all I care. But covering the face sets you apart from society.
What about hoodies? They're often worn so as to cover most of the face.
And are banned in many shopping centres as a result.
Would you have them banned by law? Do you think people should be obliged to reveal their identity at all times?
Hoodies don't separate in the same way.
I'd be fine banning gang bandanas as well.
Additionally there are times when the public interest takes precedence over the private interest. This is one of those occasions.
I'm struggling to see the public interest in dictating which beachwear is acceptable.
ISTR there have been occasional calls for - ahem - rather less than beach-ready bodies to be covered up. What to do now?
When Mrs J was teaching at a western-leaning uni in Turkey, she was obliged to follow the law that banned headscarves for students or staff. A few young women chose to wear them during lectures.
She had a choice: report them and get them thrown off the course, hence depriving them of an education as they would not attend without the scarf, or risk losing her job.
Such a ban puts pressure both on people who wish to wear such garb, and the people who officially interact with them.
I'm all for bans where it makes sense: if you are not allowed to wear a crash-helmet when you enter a bank, the same should be true for the burka.
I find the burka deeply offensive, the niqab less so, and the hijab hardly bothers me at all - many English ladies would wear a headscarf before WWII.
However, I don't believe they should be banned just because I find them offensive. They should only be banned in circumstances where there is clear logic: e.g. in courts of law and other such situations, or in children under 16 or 18.
Mr. J., There is as far as I know no law which prevents wearing a full face crash helmet in any bank, building society or petrol station. It is simply that the owners/operators of said places will not do business with anyone that is. So if you want to cash a cheque, pay some money in, buy petrol you have to comply by the businesses own rules. Fair and simple and no one complains.
If instead of wearing an item of apparel to comply with law one wears an item of apparel to comply with one's own minority cultural norms suddenly it is a huge problem.
Well it is on places like this. How much of a problem it is in the real world, I am not so sure. The cultures that demand full coverage do so in order that their women folk will not have to engage with outsiders. The woman in the full cover-up is not likely to be possing off to the shops, down to the bank or whatever. If she did the suppliers of those services should be able, without fear of prosecution, refuse service the same as they can for the person in a full face helmet.
I've nothing against demanding that all people follow the rule of law.
But when we make laws dictating what exactly people are permitted to wear, it's a good sign that we are drifting away from being a tolerant society. Let's not follow the French example.
Is Islamism "tolerant"?
Are you?
I don't believe in dress codes.
The fact *you* don't believe in them doesn't mean they should be banned. I hope you agree with that.
Do you 'believe' in the dhoti korta, chunni or sari? If we ban the hijab, should the chunni also be banned?
Ban the lot of them and duffel coats and balaclavas as well.
I've nothing against demanding that all people follow the rule of law.
But when we make laws dictating what exactly people are permitted to wear, it's a good sign that we are drifting away from being a tolerant society. Let's not follow the French example.
Is Islamism "tolerant"?
Are you?
I don't believe in dress codes.
The fact *you* don't believe in them doesn't mean they should be banned. I hope you agree with that.
Do you 'believe' in the dhoti korta, chunni or sari? If we ban the hijab, should the chunni also be banned?
In my native Nudistan, we simply don't bother wearing anything on the beach!
I've nothing against demanding that all people follow the rule of law.
But when we make laws dictating what exactly people are permitted to wear, it's a good sign that we are drifting away from being a tolerant society. Let's not follow the French example.
Is Islamism "tolerant"?
Are you?
I don't believe in dress codes.
The fact *you* don't believe in them doesn't mean they should be banned. I hope you agree with that.
Do you 'believe' in the dhoti korta, chunni or sari? If we ban the hijab, should the chunni also be banned?
In my native Nudistan, we simply don't bother wearing anything on the beach!
Poorly dodged.
You mean you've never heard of the former Soviet Republic of Nudistan?
I've nothing against demanding that all people follow the rule of law.
But when we make laws dictating what exactly people are permitted to wear, it's a good sign that we are drifting away from being a tolerant society. Let's not follow the French example.
Is Islamism "tolerant"?
Are you?
I don't believe in dress codes.
The fact *you* don't believe in them doesn't mean they should be banned. I hope you agree with that.
Do you 'believe' in the dhoti korta, chunni or sari? If we ban the hijab, should the chunni also be banned?
In my native Nudistan, we simply don't bother wearing anything on the beach!
I've nothing against demanding that all people follow the rule of law.
But when we make laws dictating what exactly people are permitted to wear, it's a good sign that we are drifting away from being a tolerant society. Let's not follow the French example.
Is Islamism "tolerant"?
Are you?
I don't believe in dress codes.
The fact *you* don't believe in them doesn't mean they should be banned. I hope you agree with that.
Do you 'believe' in the dhoti korta, chunni or sari? If we ban the hijab, should the chunni also be banned?
In my native Nudistan, we simply don't bother wearing anything on the beach!
Isn't that saying we should be intolerant because others are? Seems like a poor argument.
I didn't buy his argument. Two wrongs etc. However, as I age, I'm trying not to just retreat into an echo chamber - part of the reason for coming here and having all manner of folk on my timeline.
Mr. Jessop, my understanding was that he'd axed it, or at least watered it down. And don't forget the judiciary has been, er, axed and watered down a lot too.
Mr. Taffys, cultural sensitivity (Rotherham) and 'mental illness' (multiple recent stabbings) have a lot to answer for.
And the cowardly media/political class, of course. Ignore a problem long enough and it becomes monstrous. The Danish cartoons was a watershed moment in Western cowardice.
Mr. Jessop, my understanding was that he'd axed it, or at least watered it down. And don't forget the judiciary has been, er, axed and watered down a lot too.
Mr. Taffys, cultural sensitivity (Rotherham) and 'mental illness' (multiple recent stabbings) have a lot to answer for.
And the cowardly media/political class, of course. Ignore a problem long enough and it becomes monstrous. The Danish cartoons was a watershed moment in Western cowardice.
I'll look into the current situation and report back.
Comments
On the strictures on living, my view is that they were, in the main, based on best practice as known at the time. Probably not a good idea to eat shellfish when your sewer was the river that flowed over the shellfish beds. Halal/Kosher may have been the most humane slaughter at the time. And so on and so forth for all sorts of religious rules on living. Over a couple of thousand years, or more, technology has moved on and many rules still exist only because the religious establishments haven't.
But, let's play a thought game. If and when 'invisibility camouflage' becomes reality, should people be allowed to wear it in public? When entering a bank? Or government offices? What limits should be placed on who and where it can be worn?
hillary's new add linking trump to the kkk is spot on.
On the other hand Mrs JackW often chooses my garb that any dissent on my part results in the female arched eyebrow known to kill at a hundred paces.
Clinton 51 .. Trump 41
https://www.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us08252016_U88mxwn.pdf
Merseyside police have also told me that police providing security for Labour conference is 'not an option at the moment'
Merseyside police insist the party has to make its own security arrangements.
The town’s mayor told the woman she could not wear the headscarf, as government workers had to be seen to be neutral.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/25/muslim-refugee-thrown-out-of-integration-programme-in-germany-fo/
I foresee Aunty Merkel being on the blower shortly...
However, since swimming-costume manufacturers (I am told) produce 'swimwear' which is totally impractical for swimming in*, there is presumably no reason why 'diver wetsuits' have to be made of a 'practical' material. All a matter of legal definition.
*Shapely friends tell me such 'swimwear' comes off if you swim in it.
Which US States are most dependent on federal funding? https://t.co/QmBwOK8Tld https://t.co/KEsg5mjVm1
Another superb chart
I'd be fine banning gang bandanas as well.
Additionally there are times when the public interest takes precedence over the private interest. This is one of those occasions.
When Mrs J was teaching at a western-leaning uni in Turkey, she was obliged to follow the law that banned headscarves for students or staff. A few young women chose to wear them during lectures.
She had a choice: report them and get them thrown off the course, hence depriving them of an education as they would not attend without the scarf, or risk losing her job.
Such a ban puts pressure both on people who wish to wear such garb, and the people who officially interact with them.
I'm all for bans where it makes sense: if you are not allowed to wear a crash-helmet when you enter a bank, the same should be true for the burka.
I find the burka deeply offensive, the niqab less so, and the hijab hardly bothers me at all - many English ladies would wear a headscarf before WWII.
However, I don't believe they should be banned just because I find them offensive. They should only be banned in circumstances where there is clear logic: e.g. in courts of law and other such situations, or in children under 16 or 18.
Since Ming Campbell retired there are no Olympians in the Commons. There are six in the Lords.
Since @FeersumEnjineeya is so keen with parallels how would you feel about a gang of men in loinclitgs and shackled walking through the street. Even if they insisted it was free will.
Being offended, with accompanying death threats, worked a treat there.
Do you 'believe' in the dhoti korta, chunni or sari? If we ban the hijab, should the chunni also be banned?
Martin Daubney
#WearWhatYouWant - so long as liberal bullies don't think it's sexist https://t.co/OVeSRr3jUD https://t.co/FD3uraFcmM
On the latter I'm not as familiar as you with the dress code in Soho or some of TSE's parties ....
Saying that, if we had the trouble with Islamic extremism that France has recently, I am sure more people would empathise with the French peoples anxiety. They overwhelmingly supported the ban on the burqa 5 years ago pre Bataclan, pre Nice, Pre Hebdo...
"Villagers have been ordered to only put out their bins on the morning of collection because they are being ransacked by wild boar.
The animals are causing chaos by venturing out of the forest and onto residential streets on bin day after learning how to tip them over.
More than 1,000 wild pigs now roam free in the Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire, but they used to keep themselves hidden in the thick woodlands..."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/25/forest-of-dean-council-tells-villagers-not-to-leave-bins-out-ove/
I also reckon half the people spouting off on here don't know the difference between niqab, hijab and burka.
A hijab ban would be ridiculous.
If instead of wearing an item of apparel to comply with law one wears an item of apparel to comply with one's own minority cultural norms suddenly it is a huge problem.
Well it is on places like this. How much of a problem it is in the real world, I am not so sure. The cultures that demand full coverage do so in order that their women folk will not have to engage with outsiders. The woman in the full cover-up is not likely to be possing off to the shops, down to the bank or whatever. If she did the suppliers of those services should be able, without fear of prosecution, refuse service the same as they can for the person in a full face helmet.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/25/labour-conference-in-peril-g4s-will-not-provide-security
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Warsaw_(1920)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Soviet_War
Clinton 44 .. Trump 37
http://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/8_25_2016_final_marginals.pdf
.......I ban my employees from wearing Saltires just for shits.....
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/france-right-ban-burkini/
They will find a way of holding their conference - but it is hilarious to watch them screw up even the most basic details.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/missouri-could-be-a-swing-state-again/
However, I doubt the ban will be being applied much now anyway. It wasn't before.
Meanwhile, I learn from @patrick_kidd that #Corbyn was once the Secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Cheese Group.
#respect
Mr. Taffys, cultural sensitivity (Rotherham) and 'mental illness' (multiple recent stabbings) have a lot to answer for.
And the cowardly media/political class, of course. Ignore a problem long enough and it becomes monstrous. The Danish cartoons was a watershed moment in Western cowardice.
Agree about the cartoons.
For those interested in root meanings of words, which relate quite nicely to the types of veiling involved, we have:
hjb: to veil, cover, screen, shelter, seclude; to separate from
nqb: to bore, pierce, perforate, drill/make a hole
brq9: to veil, drape
Burkini it is ....