|
Post by june on Mar 14, 2010 20:15:28 GMT
An MP has called for ministers to ban the wearing of burqas, branding it "offensive" and "against the British way of life".
Philip Hollobone, Conservative MP for Kettering, told the Commons: "This is Britain. We are not a Muslim country. Covering your face in public is strange, and to many people both intimidating and offensive. I seriously think that a ban on wearing the burqa in public should be considered."
His call came in a debate on International Women's Day and follows previous comments by the MP that wearing a burqa was like "going round with a paper bag over your head".
Today, Mr Hollobone said wearing the full-face burqa was "oppressive and regressive" to the advancement of women in society.
He said it was not until he took his children to a park recently and saw a woman wearing one that it "came home how inappropriate and, frankly, offensive, it is for people to wear this apparel in the 21st century. In my view, and the view of my constituents, wearing the burqa is not an acceptable form of dress and the banning of it should be seriously considered."
By wearing them, women were effectively saying they did not want "any normal human dialogue or interaction with anyone else", and "effectively saying our society is so objectionable ... we aren't even allowed to cast a glance upon them". He said: "It goes against the British way of life. If we all went around wearing burqas our country would be a very sad place."
Being open and honest, this is my little prejudice. I really do not like seeing women in the full burqa. Not because they are women, not because I have some fear of Islam - none of that matters.
I would not like anyone so covered. I'm English, European and Western - therefore mostly we use the whole body to communicate. I feel discombobulated if I cannot communicate with someone because they are covered, I need to see their eyes.
BUT, I'm not sure I'd ban wearing them because religious people should be free to express themselves in a way that does no harm to others. Would we ban Nuns from wearing habits?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2010 20:24:17 GMT
June, I don't believe anyone should cover their face, for security reasons.
But the question you pose - "what does dress say about us?" - goes much, much wider that that, doesn't it? There's another thread about some religious sect trying to tell women they are inviting attacks by wearing sexy clothes. If covering up is sending out a message, don't we all send out messages by what we wear?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 15, 2010 8:53:49 GMT
what does dress say about us....rather a lot really social financial....it doesnt absolutely say who or what you are but it gives a very good indication
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2010 9:29:56 GMT
Oh Mouse, you might be surprised! Wealthy aristocrats (I was going to say 'eccentric' but not all are) buy their outfits at charity shops and go around in faded dungarees. They have nothing to lose if anyone thinks them poor.
On the other hand, when I was training for advice work, our tutor told us that she once saw a very smart man complaining that the shoes he had recently bought were faulty. The shop had offered to look at them before offering a repair or refund, but the man refused to leave them at the shop for even a day. In the end he had to explain this was because he only owned one pair of shoes.
|
|
|
Post by jade on Mar 15, 2010 9:55:18 GMT
Poor man. How humiliating.
Regarding Burkha clad women (and some male bank robbers, it appears) if it is truly their free choice to wear it then I have no problem with it, and I will do as they wish and ignore them. Not taking part in society is their choice.
My niggle is wondering if in fact it is their free choice. Short of challenging them and asking, I have no idea if they are liberated religieux, abused slaves or going with the family flow
So I would ask the leaders of the religions promoting extreme modesty to proclaim loud and long that women should dress as they see fit, that men should help their women by not trying to influence them.
And that in certain circumstances where needing to be identified is a matter of security (and I would include in that all situations where the need for CCTV has been demonstrated, so shopping centres are included) all faces should be seen clearly - no veils, no motorcycle helmets, no hoodies pulled over, no obscuring caps
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 15, 2010 10:08:22 GMT
Oh Mouse, you might be surprised! Wealthy aristocrats (I was going to say 'eccentric' but not all are) buy their outfits at charity shops and go around in faded dungarees. They have nothing to lose if anyone thinks them poo oh yes i do do know that [and its not only aristocrats] ;D but the charity shop stuff they choose will not be the ethel austin type i have a friend who goes round the charity shops...in her range rover... ;D..she absolutely lurves her bargins..we all went with her one time....it was great fun..i got a beautiful jaegger jacket for £2-50...shoes are a reasonable indicator but i think style is the criteria in that different social groups apear to have a different style of dressing...as a general rule and not an absolute of course of course real money as you say has NOTHING to prove
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 15, 2010 10:12:14 GMT
on a personal level i find the burkha and niqab offensive we struggled long and hard for rights in this country....and these women throw them back in our face..and yet at the same time witter on about their rights.... and of course its now a political statement as much as anything else
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2010 10:24:37 GMT
I defend anyone's rights to cover up from head to toe, if that is really what they choose to do. Concealing the face, as I among others have said, is something different. I can see a big advantage in a uniform black burkha - no need to worry about bad hair days, and among other burkha wearers you can be anonymous, just one of the crowd. My MIL used to wear one for that reason when she lived in Pakistan.
But yes, it may be more of a political statement now. And of course the wearing of a burkha may not be entirely a matter of free choice
|
|
|
Post by jade on Mar 15, 2010 10:29:39 GMT
But if they want to disassociate themselves from society, cover their faces and bodies, comply with a view that their modesty is assuaged only in this way etc - why should anyone demand that they show themselves (unless as I said above, there are social risks in being unidentifiable)
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 15, 2010 15:28:46 GMT
I defend anyone's rights to cover up from head to toe, but we as a society are used to reading people...and its very much a one way street in that cycle helmets..masks etc etc are not welcome in banks
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 15, 2010 16:40:25 GMT
Oh Mouse, you might be surprised! Wealthy aristocrats (I was going to say 'eccentric' but not all are) buy their outfits at charity shops and go around in faded dungarees. They have nothing to lose if anyone thinks them poor. On the other hand, when I was training for advice work, our tutor told us that she once saw a very smart man complaining that the shoes he had recently bought were faulty. The shop had offered to look at them before offering a repair or refund, but the man refused to leave them at the shop for even a day. In the end he had to explain this was because he only owned one pair of shoes. there is no reason for anyone to need more than two pairs of shoes. i have tennis shoes for running around, and moccasins for going somewhere. besides, getting dressed up means not having a hole in your tshirt
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 15, 2010 16:43:52 GMT
on a personal level i find the burkha and niqab offensive we struggled long and hard for rights in this country....and these women throw them back in our face..and yet at the same time witter on about their rights.... and of course its now a political statement as much as anything else the absolute reality is that they have no right to wear them in public. if they are stupid enough to wear them at home, that is their choice. if they want to wear them in public, they need to go back where they came from where it is acceptable. it is NOT acceptable in the civilized world
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 15, 2010 16:59:06 GMT
you have to be joking..women need lots of shoes for different out fits..colours ...heels..flats..sandles..evenings etc etc shoes are the spice of live and t-shirts are a bit of an abomination...fine for the beach but elswhere mmmmmm
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 15, 2010 20:39:46 GMT
you have to be joking..women need lots of shoes for different out fits..colours ...heels..flats..sandles..evenings etc etc shoes are the spice of live and t-shirts are a bit of an abomination...fine for the beach but elswhere mmmmmm what kind of sense is there to having thirty pairs, or more, of shoes? if i were to grant the "necessity" of having a pair of shoes for an outfit, a white pair and a black pair will match EVERY outfit. i acknowledge the fact that females labor under the delusion that everything is supposed to match, but constantly buying new shoes every time you buy a new shirt is insane. i would sometimes wear another shirt over a tshirt for a special occassion, or if my ol' lady whines enough, but, there is no reason for it. otherwise, during the spring and summer, the chances of my wearing anything but a tshirt is zilch. besides, i spend a lot of money having neat sayings printed on my shirts, and it would be rather daft to cover it up. what good would it to do wear my "please tell your boobs to quit staring at my eyes" shirt to the store if no one can read it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2010 22:26:02 GMT
Jumbo, you never cease to surprise me! Even Mr Lark has three pairs of shoes (a pair for work, a pair for muddy walks with the dog and sandals).
But I am in the unfortunate posiiton of having once to call Mr Lark as a witness (civil case). He was so badly dressed that the bench immediately mistook him for the (as yet) absent defendant, and put him in the dock.
I was laughing so much inside it took me a few minutes before I managed to disabuse them.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 15, 2010 22:59:07 GMT
Jumbo, you never cease to surprise me! Even Mr Lark has three pairs of shoes (a pair for work, a pair for muddy walks with the dog and sandals). But I am in the unfortunate posiiton of having once to call Mr Lark as a witness (civil case). He was so badly dressed that the bench immediately mistook him for the (as yet) absent defendant, and put him in the dock. I was laughing so much inside it took me a few minutes before I managed to disabuse them. well, the judge in the general sessions court here is an imbecile. a couple of years ago, i had to go to court with my ol' lady. i wore my "i see stupid people 20/20" tshirt. the idiot threatened to throw me in jail if i ever wore it to court again. he isn't intelligent enough to comprehend when i explained that there was nothing in the posted dress code which said i couldn't wear it. twenty years ago, i would have worn it again, but, i have better things to do than hassle with an old idiot
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2010 7:53:45 GMT
That reminds me of the story of the man who wanted to enter court with a parrot on his shoulder. His barrister (a friend of my OH) argued there was nothing in the rules to ban parrots, only dogs. In the end the court clerk triuphantly declared that there was a ban on recording devices, and the parrot was a recording device.
Of course, slogans on tee shirts are the transparant way of showing your character. But I think every item we put on says something about us.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Mar 16, 2010 9:20:49 GMT
you have to be joking..women need lots of shoes for different out fits..colours ...heels..flats..sandles..evenings etc etc shoes are the spice of live and t-shirts are a bit of an abomination...fine for the beach but elswhere mmmmmm what kind of sense is there to having thirty pairs, or more, of shoes? if i were to grant the "necessity" of having a pair of shoes for an outfit, a white pair and a black pair will match EVERY outfit. i acknowledge the fact that females labor under the delusion that everything is supposed to match, but constantly buying new shoes every time you buy a new shirt is insane. i would sometimes wear another shirt over a tshirt for a special occassion, or if my ol' lady whines enough, but, there is no reason for it. otherwise, during the spring and summer, the chances of my wearing anything but a tshirt is zilch. besides, i spend a lot of money having neat sayings printed on my shirts, and it would be rather daft to cover it up. what good would it to do wear my "please tell your boobs to quit staring at my eyes" shirt to the store if no one can read it? there is nothing better than a smartly turned out male... i am afraid we are simply not compatable Jumbo..... even my grandsons wear what is apropriate to the ocasion a nd have more thn two pairs of shoes
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Mar 16, 2010 11:38:13 GMT
Surely the point of the burkha (and the reason I am opposed to it being worn) is that it is designed solely as a means of enforcing the subjugation of women; of making them less than second class citizens. And while I am no expert on Islamic studies, I think I am right in saying that the Koran doesn't even mention the garment--which came as an ad-on to an already oppressive religion. Women obliged to walk behind their lords and masters, and having to cover their features from the world---no---this has no place in a civilised country; even if women have been brainwashed or browbeaten into accepting their inferior lot!
|
|
|
Post by jade on Mar 16, 2010 11:44:40 GMT
I thought its origins were in the Byzantine empire when rich blokes did not want the hoi poloi gazing at the beauty that had cost him so dear, and so he wanted it covered - allowing the peasantry only to dream of the beauty contained inside that shroud.
Notning about it in the Koran at all.
|
|