80 replies to this topic

[Euphorbia]

Knight Of Shadows, on 07 June 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

indee

indeed and mine might be way more corrupted in some means
it's just my socitiy did not dig low enough to use religious costumes or clothes as mean to crimes
" my socitiy not my goverment coz the latter have gone worst than animals in their corruption "

my socitiy does not ban religious covers and claim democracy and freedom at least if they wanna ban them
just put it as the fact for it stand for .. that is some of your socity's scums and filth will use it as mean to crime
and say that is your socities fault .. and the problem not within the veil it self
that's all am saying

This is not an attack on the Muslim faith or those that dress for their faith!

It's not religious costumes per se, but anything that masks ones face. This includes masks as well as the veil.

The problem here is that if you see someone wearing the veil, you can't assume the person wearing it is even a female. In Muslim countries it's OK to wear it but it is unnerving to most people in western countries. We are accustomed to seeing people's faces.

[meryt-tetisheri]

KoS, niqab has been, and is being used by people also in the Middle East to hide their identity, sometimes even their gender, while committing illegal or fraudulent crimes; one example would be the recent elections in Egypt when the same person voted several times, using different ID cards, and some were caught. I think you must have also heard about anecdotal incidents when it was used in countries from which this tradition originated, to circumvent restrictions on meetings between unrelated men & women. Niqab is but one interpretation of Islam. The last Sheikh Al Azhar, Sheikh Tantawy, refused to repudiate the French law stating that it is permissible for one to accommodate, or adapt to a different culture as a “darourat’ (necessities).

East or west, human nature is the same: same weaknesses, same strengths. Nirvana does not reign in either. There are no ‘filthy societies’, only ‘filthy’ individuals, and they abound everywhere.

[Euphorbia]

Yamato, on 07 June 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

I acknowledge why you're torn and think you've thought it out well.  Your laundry list is prudent, yet government is great at finding exceptions to our liberties just like that, and its intentions for doing so are always good as I'm sure yours are.   We can broach the topic of security issues, but it's an extracurricular activity not framed by the differences between these two women in the video.   On this matter, I again agree with the woman in the niqab, and with you as well.  I agree security is an important consideration in some circumstances and in those, we should show our faces.

That said, I can wear a wig, a hat, grow a beard and dye it, wear sunglasses that even hide my eyes, and hide more of my appearance than a woman in a niqab and yet I don't hear any rush of agreement to ban such preferences in my appearance in the grand quest that is always the federal government making us "safe".   It's more specific to Muslims than that, it's more discriminatory than that. Rules about going into stores isn't the federal government's business, that is typically a matter of store policy.   If businesses want to discriminate and risk shooting themselves in the foot in the pursuit of security, that's their responsibility.  Taking risks is a business's job.

Try walking into a bank or into an airport wearing a wig, a hat, a dyed beard, and sunglasses and see how far you'd get. I would suspect you would be pulled aside for questioning real quick like!

Quote

Using bad words in speech, speaking dishonestly, or hiding one's true feelings with false emotional expressions wouldn't be conducive to a quality conversation either, but likewise, I don't want government enforcing legislation that seeks to control or ban those behaviors.   Maybe behind her veil, you have to judge her by what she says and not what she looks like.   Don't tell me that can't be used to advantage by some women.  I can understand why some women want to wear clothes like this and I respect their right to do so.  Our visual brains may feel deprived by that, but our auditory brains could use the workout!

To each his/her own. I personally want to see the face of the person I am conversing with and the government agrees with me.

[Yamato]

Niqab is but one interpretation of Islam, but religion is often like that.  Our founding fathers paid an undue amount of attention to freedom of religion, and the different interpretations seen in every major religion are covered. They were especially and explicitly clear that this liberty is protected and I'm thankful for that.   I'm of course only speaking for the US per the US Constitution.   You can't cry "fire!" in a crowded theater, and there are indeed pragmatic limitations to the liberty conveyed by our Bill of Rights, but what happens to you if you cry in a theater should largely be a matter between you and that theater, and perhaps local legislation, local courts and local police.   The federal government's role in this case should be to stand by ready to defend my 1st Amendment rights if necessary.  Of course we don't get government anywhere near that Constitutionally ideal but it's still nice to talk about, and a boy can dream too can't he?

[Knight Of Shadows]

hey tetisheri

ahh please these aren't really crimes they're .. fraud felony
they're talking big here like armed robbery i have never seen a man in woman's clothes robbing a store here .. did you ?
sheikh tantawy ... if you ask me i think old age got the best of him he started to make alot of mistakes and stupid things of late
which drops his creditablity in my eyes you do know he made alot of crap fatuas don't you ?
he was just old .. 5arfan man .. in my opinion make one mistake and keep going with that mistake
and that earns you a spot on my black list no matter who you were azhar shekth or not

the different is .. we have those Niqabs here and egypt and everywhere
have they became generally the means to crime ?
has it became the theme for crimes here ? did it became so dangerous that the nation laws would wanna
take action against it .. i'll answer for you .. no

but if it scares the western so much .. then they know that their societies are way much corrupted
that they'll use this religious cover as means to crime thefore they saw it as threat coz they knew
such corruption could not handle such cover or clothes
how do you explain us having it all over middle east .. and yet rarely .. there is a man in Niqab banging shoots left and right

the fact is firm .. there wasn't crimes in Niqab enough in middle east to ban it
whilst the westerns run tirelessly to ban it therefore they know their scrums of socitiy and their criminals and their etc etc etc
could not handle it
therefore .. it's their soceity's fault .. not the cover


how is egypt by the way .. i hope you're not gonna vote for shafiq-mubarak

[Yamato]

Euphorbia, on 07 June 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

Try walking into a bank or into an airport wearing a wig, a hat, a dyed beard, and sunglasses and see how far you'd get. I would suspect you would be pulled aside for questioning real quick like!



To each his/her own. I personally want to see the face of the person I am conversing with and the government agrees with me.

Our personal wants shouldn't be legislated on the federal level and the federal government definitely doesn't disagree with me on this; read the Constitution.

I walk into my bank with a hat and sunglasses almost every time I walk into my bank.

[Euphorbia]

Yamato, on 07 June 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

Our personal wants shouldn't be legislated on the federal level and the federal government definitely doesn't disagree with me on this; read the Constitution.

I'm not saying our wants should be legislated but heavy security seems to be in these days.....

Quote

I walk into my bank with a hat and sunglasses almost every time I walk into my bank.

What about the wig and the dyed beard? And there's no way you'd get through an airport with all of this on! You'd have every square inch of your body felt up.

[eight bits]

Y

Quote

No of course not, and why would you do that?

Because I think it is right for the people of France to govern themselves and to make their own laws. As I stated, the specific issue is consttutionally settled in the US, and that's fine with me, for the parallel reason, that the people of the United States should govern themselves.

Quote

The woman wearing the niqab expressed that she has no problem with driver's licenses or TSA agents at airports and so bringing that up doesn't broach her position, my position, or even a difference between the two women.

No, but it does limit the prospects for the other woman's proposal for changing the laws in the United States. She may get some of what she wants, but she will have to settle for reasonable time, place and manner regulations, and no more than that. That's what I discussed.

Quote

... freedom of religion....

That term means different things in different places. In France, it means freedom of conscience. It also means that you cannot be imposed upon by others' overt acts of faith in public. (There are some exceptions.)

Quote

We don't have a right to infringe on anyone else's rights; and preventing that from happening is the primary role of government.

Right after there is a clear statement of what everyone's rights are. That's harder than it looks. Apparently you don't see that.

For a libertarian, a visit to Paris is like dying and going to heaven. You can save any song and dance that France is not a free country. They do not, however, have one particular right that Americans do, and conversely Americans don't have one that the French do.

You can't have both a secular society and an unrestricted right of free religious expression. Each country chose one. There is no impersonally interesting  "liberty" issue. There is a conflict among rights. Providing a peaceful means of resolving those, too, is a legitimate function of government, even among libertarians. I would know that, since I am one.

[Yamato]

And if you're a libertarian, getting groped by the TSA means that bin Laden won.  

There are two Americans in the video and the debate is over the degree to which government should intervene in personal dress code.  We apply a case study to ourselves and therein lies the debate.   I'm not interested in intervening in French law, that's not at issue for me.

Who says you can't have both a secular society and freedom of religious expression?   Of course you can have both.   And we very nearly do in the US, save for road bumps like this one.

What "rights" is there a conflict among?   There are religious freedoms of Muslim women getting violated, for a number of reasons and not all of them good.  Cases in the US aren't as severe as the French backstory to this video and yet Muslim women have been discriminated against in the US, in the past 10 years especially.

[hetrodoxly]

Knight Of Shadows, on 07 June 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

hey tetisheri

ahh please these aren't really crimes they're .. fraud felony
they're talking big here like armed robbery i have never seen a man in woman's clothes robbing a store here .. did you ?
sheikh tantawy ... if you ask me i think old age got the best of him he started to make alot of mistakes and stupid things of late
which drops his creditablity in my eyes you do know he made alot of crap fatuas don't you ?
he was just old .. 5arfan man .. in my opinion make one mistake and keep going with that mistake
and that earns you a spot on my black list no matter who you were azhar shekth or not

the different is .. we have those Niqabs here and egypt and everywhere
have they became generally the means to crime ?
has it became the theme for crimes here ? did it became so dangerous that the nation laws would wanna
take action against it .. i'll answer for you .. no

but if it scares the western so much .. then they know that their societies are way much corrupted
that they'll use this religious cover as means to crime thefore they saw it as threat coz they knew
such corruption could not handle such cover or clothes
how do you explain us having it all over middle east .. and yet rarely .. there is a man in Niqab banging shoots left and right

the fact is firm .. there wasn't crimes in Niqab enough in middle east to ban it
whilst the westerns run tirelessly to ban it therefore they know their scrums of socitiy and their criminals and their etc etc etc
could not handle it
therefore .. it's their soceity's fault .. not the cover


how is egypt by the way .. i hope you're not gonna vote for shafiq-mubarak

It's a crime to cover your face in certain areas in most western counties ie it's the law of the land, if you don't want to abide by the laws of a country don't go there, there's been very few crimes commited by people wearing a burka but the once that have been are by filthy Muslims.

[Knight Of Shadows]

well that's fine if they wanna ban it all am saying just say the real reason
which is " our society is filled with filthy scumbags who will use this code of clothes as mean to commit crimes and get away from punishment therefore the problem is not within those clothes it's within the core corruption in our society ! "

see that's all they have to say ! just put things in their place

[hetrodoxly]

Knight Of Shadows, on 07 June 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

well that's fine if they wanna ban it all am saying just say the real reason
which is " our society is filled with filthy scumbags who will use this code of clothes as mean to commit crimes and get away from punishment therefore the problem is not within those clothes it's within the core corruption in our society ! "

see that's all they have to say ! just put things in their place

It's what they are saying it's what they have said it's the reason for the ban, you walk into a bank in the UK with your face covered shutters will come down alarms will go of yes we have criminals and a high proportion of them pro rater are Muslim.

[Yamato]

Knight Of Shadows, on 07 June 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

well that's fine if they wanna ban it all am saying just say the real reason
which is " our society is filled with filthy scumbags who will use this code of clothes as mean to commit crimes and get away from punishment therefore the problem is not within those clothes it's within the core corruption in our society ! "

see that's all they have to say ! just put things in their place

There's no epidemic of Muslim bank robbers here, despite the lack of bans on clothing some Americans actually want.  

[meryt-tetisheri]

Hey KoS I hope you’re safe and doing well.  
Tantawi 5arfan ? Ezkorou Ma7assen Mawtakum ! He used to be popular in Cairo for a while. The poor man passed away, but Azhar did not change its position that niqab is a tradition not a ‘fard’. It is the ultra-right which is espousing niqab in Egypt, and they are losing credibility (for other reasons) fast.  As a matter of fact, niqab has been used for committing crimes, not just felonies, which included shooting a suspect in front of a court house in Upper Egypt (the example which came in mind now); and years ago, a large niqabi person literally ran into me in down town, Cairo wearing army boots, too large in build to be a woman, and the experience was “startling” to say the least. The problem of niqab in the west has more to do with integration and showing a willingness to accept and adopt the new ‘homeland’; this is a main reason why public opinion is so suspicious of it; but this is only one reason among others. The comparison between a niqab ban in the ME, where it is part of a traditional culture, and the West, where it is an “alien” practice that runs counter to its own traditions does not really hold. It is not simply a matter of corruption.  However, I admit that personally, as a woman, I share Mona Al Tahtawi’s  view of niqab, but that’s another discussion.
As for Egypt, it’s passing through a transitional period full of turmoil, and the choice between bad & worse isn’t sitting well with many people. Married to a European, I cannot vote. I do not want to go into details (or derail the thread) but I definitely would not have voted for Shafik or Mursi el estebn’ (the ‘spare tyre'). Egypt missed a chance with both Baradei & Sabahy.

Stay safe!

[eight bits]

Quote

And if you're a libertarian, getting groped by the TSA means that bin Laden won.  

That may well be, although we are drifting away from the topic of this thread.

Quote

There are two Americans in the video and the debate is over the degree to which government should intervene in personal dress code.

There are two Americans discussing the contrast between how two governments protect their people's liberty. One government chooses one freedom and leaves the other, while the other government chooses the other freedom, and leaves the first. Nobody can have both.

Quote

Who says you can't have both a secular society and freedom of religious expression?

Do the math. In France, the principle of secularism allows the costume to be forbidden in public, and the government did so, legally and constitutionally. In America, freedom of religious expression prevents the government from  forbidding the costume from being worn in public.

It follows that you cannot have both freedoms. They are incompatible, generally, but also as regards the specific public behavior that is the subject of the thread. (You can wear whatever you like in private in both France and the United States; there is no issue of regulating personal private behavior in this thread, only overt acts in public.)

Quote

And we very nearly do in the US

No, there is no American legal doctrine that corresponds with the French principle of secularism. Of course, there is no French dotrine of free religious expression. Both recognize freedom of conscience.

You seem to think that France must, should or would be nicer to respect rights that French Muslim women would have in the United States. The women affected by the ban aren't in the United States. They're in France. They have different rights. The French people have every right to regulate religious displays in their public places. The American people do not, because they have chosen to embrace another incompatible freedom instead.