Woman in face veil detained

[dekker87]

well i don't know. what is the point? I was suggesting that people communicate without seeing faces every day. You and I are doing it right now. would people be happy identifying themslves online as a compulsory law with imposed penalties if you didn't?

if i'm standing opposite you conversing with you i want to see your face...or at least i don't want you sat there looking at mine from behind a veil.

like I said people communicate on the phone, via memos, internet, etc without seeing the others face, so I don;t think that is the point at all.

it's entirely the point.

if the woman chooses, it cannot be oppression. free choice is diametric to oppression. denying under penaalty the right to wear a veil is oppression too.

no it isn't. it's protecting women from religious oppression.

does one need a veil to blow themselves up?

who said anything about blowing anyone up!?!?

you can get a fair bit of semtex under a skull cap.

<laughing too hard to even take that seriously>

there is no security risk unless we include irrational fear as a threat to feeling secure.

of course there is.

I agree here, so let people wear what they want. I know a guy who dresses in a fairy costume and walks around the shopping centre, probably quite mad, doesn't bother me or anyone else, not even the police.

i think their attitude would be quite different were his face to be covered up.

I agree there, but there was no law that non muslims had to show their face.

there is now! and it applies to everyone equally.

you really don't get this do you...

ok - let's try from another angle....how about all non-muslim people carry balaclavas about with them and every time they see a woman with a veil on they pull their balaclavas on?

'quick here comes a muslim woman - everyone get their masks on'

what would your opinion of that be?

[Little Fish]

what!?!?

lol!!!

the veil you posted is not a niqab...which totally covers the face...

yes i think it was a niqab, you are thinking of the burka? I'm no expert though.

tho in any case i don't think anyone was discussin drivin with a veil on.

it was the post i responded to where the poster implied a reason for banning it in public was that it may interfere with driving.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=203944&st=60&p=3861088entry3861088

also it's only full face veils that have been banned....not veils per se...

not sure that's correct given what the media is saying.

[Little Fish]

if i'm standing opposite you conversing with you i want to see your face...or at least i don't want you sat there looking at mine from behind a veil.

well tough titty. if you don't like it then don't talk to me, or alternatively use the telephone. Edited April 13, 2011 by Little Fish

[dekker87]

yes i think it was a niqab, you are thinking of the burka? I'm no expert though.

A niqāb (Arabic: نِقاب‎ "mask") is a veil which covers the face, worn by some Muslim women as a part of sartorial hijāb. The niqab is most common in the Arab countries of the Arabian Peninsula such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and the UAE. It is also common in Pakistan and some parts of India[citation needed].

Women who wear the niqāb are often called niqābīah; this word is used both as a noun and as an adjective. However, some prefer the participial form munaqqabah (plural munaqqabāt) as "niqābīah" may be used in a derogatory manner (much as with "hijābīah" versus muhajjabah).[1]

Because of the wide variety of hijab worn in the Muslim world, it can be difficult to definitively distinguish between one type of veil and another. The terms niqāb and burqa are often incorrectly used interchangeably; a niqab covers the face while a burka covers the whole body from the top of the head to the ground.

so the answer is both are banned but neither are the same as the veil you posted with doesn't totally cover the face as the eyes are showing....tho actually i believe that too is banned as well.

it was the post i responded to where the poster implied a reason for banning it in public was that it may interfere with driving.

oh i see....apologies then but a non-point imo.

[dekker87]

well tough titty. if you don't like it then don't talk to me, or alternatively use the telephone.

how about if i see you enter with a veil on and pull my own out of my pocket and put that on whilst talkin?

acceptable behaviour?

[Little Fish]

i think their attitude would be quite different were his face to be covered up.

why?

there is now! and it applies to everyone equally.

there is a law that non-muslims had to show their face?

sorry, don't believe you.

which country? I assume you are talking about france or UK?

you really don't get this do you...

I absolutely do not get it, no, unequivaocally!

ok - let's try from another angle....how about all non-muslim people carry balaclavas about with them and every time they see a woman with a veil on they pull their balaclavas on?

'quick here comes a muslim woman - everyone get their masks on'

what would your opinion of that be?

I would immediately move to install a police state where all non combatants would strip down to their bare skin and show me zare paperz.

[Little Fish]

how about if i see you enter with a veil on and pull my own out of my pocket and put that on whilst talkin?

acceptable behaviour?

whatever you want to do, its a free country (or used to be).

[dekker87]

why?

because people walking about with their faces covered up is suspicious behaviour!!

there is a law that non-muslims had to show their face?

sorry, don't believe you.

which country? I assume you are talking about france or UK?

france...i didnt say there was a law but that there is one now....this law applies to all....not just muslims...you understand that at least?!

I absolutely do not get it, no, unequivaocally!

if someone knocks on your door....you look thru a viewer and they have a mask on would you feel unnerved?

have you ever actually seen any of these ninja-muslims in real life?

I would immediately move to install a police state where all non combatants would strip down to their bare skin and show me zare paperz.

why?? what problem would you have with me wearing a veil if i saw you wearing one?

whatever you want to do, its a free country (or used to be).

what is!?!?

the UK!?!?

don't make me laugh.

[Little Fish]

because people walking about with their faces covered up is suspicious behaviour!!

is it illegal to behave suspiciously? suspicious behaviour is in the eye of the beholder.

if someone knocks on your door....you look thru a viewer and they have a mask on would you feel unnerved?

should we be legislating for peoples feelings? I don't think so. just don't open the door.

why?? what problem would you have with me wearing a veil if i saw you wearing one?

i was being ridiculous. i have no care what you wear over your face.

[dekker87]

is it illegal to behave suspiciously? suspicious behaviour is in the eye of the beholder.

should we be legislating for peoples feelings? I don't think so. just don't open the door.

i was being ridiculous. i have no care what you wear over your face.

juvenile nonsensical remarks that don't really deserve a response.

[dekker87]

if there is a religion that should be banned it's christianity ..... it has done more harm to the world then the moslims ever did

<yawn>

i've never heard that line before...

wanna break it down for me?

[Persia]

Can't Wear That

Telling Muslim Women what not to wear

http://www.iranian.com/main/2011/apr/cant-wear

[dekker87]

Can't Wear That

Telling Muslim Women what not to wear

http://www.iranian.com/main/2011/apr/cant-wear

those poor 'oppressed' french muslim women...perhaps they'd prefer a place in saudi arabia where they could wrap themselves up to their hearts content.

women's rights in Saudi Arabia:

Gender roles in Saudi society come from Sharia (Islamic law) and tribal culture. The Arabian peninsula is the ancestral home of patriarchal, nomadic tribes, in which purdah (separation of women and men) and namus (honor) are central.

All women, regardless of age, are required to have a male guardian. Women cannot vote or be elected to high political positions.[1] Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that prohibits women from driving. The World Economic Forum 2009 Global Gender Gap Report ranked Saudi Arabia 130th out of 134 countries for gender parity. It was the only country to score a zero in the category of political empowerment.

Women's rights in Saudi Arabia are defined by Islam and tribal customs. Islamic law (sharia) is based on the Qur'an and hadith (teachings of Muhammad). In Saudi culture, the sharia is interpreted according to a strict Sunni form known as Salafi (or Wahhabi). The law is mostly unwritten, leaving judges with significant discretionary power which they usually exercise in favor of tribal customs.[8] The variation of interpretation often leads to controversy. For example, Sheikh Ahmad Qassim Al-Ghamdi, chief of the Makkah region’s mutaween (religious police), has said prohibiting ikhtilat (gender mixing) has no basis in Sharia.[9][10] Meanwhile, Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Barrak, another prominent cleric, issued a fatwa (religious opinion) that proponents of ikhtilat should be killed.[3]

All females must have a male guardian, typically a father or husband. The guardian has duties to, and rights over, the woman in many aspects of civic life. A United Nation's Special Rapporteur report states that “legal guardianship of women by a male, is practised in varying degrees and encompasses major aspects of women’s lives. The system is said to emanate from social conventions, including the importance of protecting women, and from religious precepts on travel and marriage, although these requirements were arguably confined to particular situations.” Depending on the guardian, women may need their guardian's permission for: marriage and divorce; travel, if under 45; education; employment; opening a bank account; elective surgery, particularly when sexual in nature.

Saudi activist Wajeha Al-Huwaider agrees that most Saudi men are caring, but "it’s the same kind of feeling they have for handicapped people or for animals. The kindness comes from pity, from lack of respect.”[3] She compares male guardianship to slavery:[21]

The ownership of a woman is passed from one man to another. Ownership of the woman is passed from the father or the brother to another man, the husband. The woman is merely a piece of merchandise, which is passed over to someone else—her guardian ... Ultimately, I think women are greatly feared. When I compare the Saudi man with other Arab men, I can say that the Saudi is the only man who could not compete with the woman. He could not compete, so what did he do with her? ... The woman has capabilities. When women study, they compete with the men for jobs. All jobs are open to men. 90% of them are open to men. You do not feel any competition ... If you do not face competition from the Saudi woman ... you have the entire scene for yourself. All positions and jobs are reserved for you. Therefore, you are a spoiled and self-indulged man.

NamusMale guardianship is closely related to namus (or "sharaf" in a Bedouin context), roughly translated as "honor". It also carries connotations of modesty and respectability. The namus of a male includes the protection of the females in his family. He provides for them, and in turn the women's honor (sometimes called "ird") reflects on him. Namus is a common feature of many different patriarchal societies.

Since the namus of a male guardian is affected by that of the women under his care, he is expected to control their behavior. If their honor is lost, in the eyes of the community he has lost control of them. Threats to chastity, in particular, are threats to the namus of the male guardian.[29]

"If a [pregnant] woman comes in to the hospital with a guardian, then she can leave with anyone, even the driver. If she comes in without a guardian, it becomes a "police case," and she'll need a guardian to come to the hospital in order for her to get discharged."

Clinical psychologist[28]

Namus is associated with honor killing. If a man loses namus because of a woman in his family, he may attempt to cleanse his honor by punishing her. In extreme cases, the punishment can be death. The suspicion alone of a woman’s wrong-doing can be enough for her to be subject to violence in the name of honor.[30]

In 2007, a young woman was murdered by her father for chatting with a man on Facebook. The case attracted a lot of media attention. Conservatives called for the government to ban Facebook, because it incites lust and causes social strife by encouraging gender mingling.[31][32]

i could go on for hours.

[Little Fish]

should flu masks be banned in public?

[Helen of Annoy]

should flu masks be banned in public?

Oh, for the love of multi-confessional god, how often do people refuse to demask themselves when police, salesmen, doctors, teachers, friends etc. politely ask them to do so?

Its not about what you will put on your head, most people think you can put a pot on your head if you like, its about breaking the law (that existed before the masking fashion was imported) by refusing to dismantle whatever is on your head in order to have yourself identified. It's also about offending people by implying that they are such animals they're going to jump on your bare... face? Come on, you're not that astonishing. And western men are not that desperate. A lot of Muslim men are also rather offended by such interpretation, which is just one of many interpretations.

Again, how come this, the most rigid interpretation is suddenly so popular? Ever pondered about that?

Arab culture demands the negation of womens personal identity, western culture insists on personal identity. Whats unclear there?

If a woman wants to give up her identity and integrity she can happily immigrate to countries that will be even happier to accommodate her wish. She has absolutely zero right and zero chance to extort her religious views over existing laws of majority in a particular country that she has entered on her free will. On her fathers/husbands/brothers free will, that is. They should exercise that same free will and redirect themselves somewhere where climate suits them and their clothing better.

It is completely wrong to ban any kind of clothing. Its also totally unfair to discriminate poor nudists. If they want their junk to come in direct contact with seats in public transport, let them. Their freedom, their antibiotics, their problem.

But its even more wrong to try to declare youre above the law.

How illogical is that? Women who refuse to have an identity are determined to put themselves above the laws of independent countries.

Anarchists of all nations, unite and start wearing burkhas. The world will be yours before you can say: Arrogance.

Since when is arrogance modest?

Edited April 14, 2011 by Helen of Annoy

[Little Fish]

so are flu masks banned in public?

this isn't about being asked to remove something, this is about making something illegal.

are flu masks illegal?

[Little Fish]

She has absolutely zero right and zero chance to extort her religious views over existing laws of majority in a particular country that she has entered on her free will

the law is a new law. it isn't a case of her entering a country with an existing law.

[Little Fish]

maybe we should allow europeans to wear flu masks in public, but ban muslims from wearing flu masks in public.

[shadowhive]

so are flu masks banned in public?

this isn't about being asked to remove something, this is about making something illegal.

are flu masks illegal?

No they're not. Neither are glasses, baseball caps, sunglasses, hats, bicycle helmets or beards.

However, the veil is seen as, among other things, a symbol of female opression. Also people are suspicious of those that cover their face so much and find it hard to trust them. This is in part due to how we communicate. It's not just what we say and how we way it, it's about body language and facical expressions. So to purposely cover it without a reason (flu masks are a medical reason, motorcycle helmets are a safety one) comes off as extraordinarly suspicious.

Like I said earier, banning is perhaps a bit too far, but in the end I'm only surprised by the fact that it's France (and not somewhere like America or here) that has this new law.

[Helen of Annoy]

@ Little Fish, of course.

If only I could dumb myself down some more...

The custom of showing yourself to people so they know you come with friendly intentions (unlike enemy that creeps behind you, masked) is as old as civilisation that is called European today.

It will, I assure you, last for quite some time in future too. Longer than house built on sand, to use perfectly functional metaphor. Because the real treasure is skill. And water. Screw oil, its a moment in history, nothing more.

European laws evolved from European traditions so it was, is and it will be against the law to refuse to identify yourself. As it was before your ambassadors of arrogance showed up and started to demand special rights only for themselves, regardless what people around them feel about it.

So, who's arrogant bigot in this story?

Who's having an epic ego-trip?

Who's so unmodest it hurts?

What argument do you offer so I can understand why is the opinion of a Muslim man from particular sect more valuable than opinion of Europeans of any gender as well as of sane part of Muslim population?

Edited April 14, 2011 by Helen of Annoy

[odas]

@ Little Fish, of course.

If only I could dumb myself down some more...

The custom of showing yourself to people so they know you come with friendly intentions (unlike enemy that creeps behind you, masked) is as old as civilisation that is called European today.

It will, I assure you, last for quite some time in future too. Longer than house built on sand, to use perfectly functional metaphor. Because the real treasure is skill. And water. Screw oil, it’s a moment in history, nothing more.

European laws evolved from European traditions so it was, is and it will be against the law to refuse to identify yourself. As it was before your ambassadors of arrogance showed up and started to demand special rights only for themselves, regardless what people around them feel about it

So, who's arrogant bigot in this story?

Who's having an epic ego-trip?

Who's so unmodest it hurts?

What argument do you offer so I can understand why is the opinion of a Muslim man from particular sect more valuable than opinion of Europeans of any gender as well as of sane part of Muslim population?

First time I disagree with you.

[Helen of Annoy]

First time I disagree with you.

Little Fish’s picture book argumentation irks me.

[zebra99]

No they're not. Neither are glasses, baseball caps, sunglasses, hats, bicycle helmets or beards.

However, the veil is seen as, among other things, a symbol of female opression. Also people are suspicious of those that cover their face so much and find it hard to trust them. This is in part due to how we communicate. It's not just what we say and how we way it, it's about body language and facical expressions. So to purposely cover it without a reason (flu masks are a medical reason, motorcycle helmets are a safety one) comes off as extraordinarly suspicious.

Like I said earier, banning is perhaps a bit too far, but in the end I'm only surprised by the fact that it's France (and not somewhere like America or here) that has this new law.

Or masks or veils used in traditional or religious carnivals..Or costumes worn in carnivals or advertising..eg.mascots/Disneyland Paris...Or face coverings used for health and safety reasons or worn by sportsmen/women.

Edited April 14, 2011 by zebra99

[Little Fish]

No they're not. Neither are glasses, baseball caps, sunglasses, hats, bicycle helmets or beards.

However, the veil is seen as, among other things, a symbol of female opression.

if the women decides for herself to wear it, then it is not opressive. telling her she can't wear it when she wants to is oppressive. If the issue is oppression then it would be better not to oppress anyone. let people wear what they like and make both 'forcing someone to wear' and 'forcing someone not to wear' illegal.

Also people are suspicious of those that cover their face so much and find it hard to trust them. This is in part due to how we communicate. It's not just what we say and how we way it, it's about body language and facical expressions.

so you don't trust people on the phone? or when you hear them on the radio? do blind people distrust everyone?

So to purposely cover it without a reason (flu masks are a medical reason, motorcycle helmets are a safety one) comes off as extraordinarly suspicious.

what about religious reasons? does everything need a reason? what is the resons for a jewish skull cap?

what about singing or dancing on the bus, suspicious?

now what if a muslim women uses a flu mask in public? will she get arrested?

[Little Fish]

@ Little Fish, of course.

If only I could dumb myself down some more...

you're doing just fine.

The custom of showing yourself to people so they know you come with friendly intentions (unlike enemy that creeps behind you, masked) is as old as civilisation that is called European today.

It will, I assure you, last for quite some time in future too. Longer than house built on sand, to use perfectly functional metaphor. Because the real treasure is skill. And water. Screw oil, it’s a moment in history, nothing more.

European laws evolved from European traditions so it was, is and it will be against the law to refuse to identify yourself. As it was before your ambassadors of arrogance showed up and started to demand special rights only for themselves, regardless what people around them feel about it.

So, who's arrogant bigot in this story?

Who's having an epic ego-trip?

Who's so unmodest it hurts?

What argument do you offer so I can understand why is the opinion of a Muslim man from particular sect more valuable than opinion of Europeans of any gender as well as of sane part of Muslim population?

against the law to identify yourself???