Schools allowed to ban face veils

forcing customs is totally, untolerant.(I am not even talking about respecting their rights, but tolerance to their culture.)

Originally posted by Mortaza forcing customs is totally, untolerant.(I am not even talking about respecting their rights, but tolerance to their culture.)

But this is a case of conflicting customs. You are demanding the natives should tolerate the new-comers', while you think the newcomers shouldn't give a damn about the prevalent native customs.

Originally posted by Northman BUT - the sad thing is, the facial veil is NOT an expression of personal freedom, nor is it (as mentioned numerous times here) religious related.

Right now, in this thread it is. The personal freedom to wear what you want, that is the only issue - Freedom of Expression. (isn't it funny how freedom of expression is only used in a west vs other way. When we restrict freedom, of shock horror its a terrible thing, but when they restrict freedom, its necessary for a safe society)

Its pre-Islam, founded in the tribal societies in the middle east 2- or 3.000 years ago, to protect a mans (father or husband) property, hiding the beauty of his women, that no other man should be aroused by her beauty or tempted to want her in one way or the other.

Speculation. The only reason why european women show so much skin is because their social structure is inadiquate to the task of people partners in any other way.

It has become a tradition like many other things many people (including muslims) think is related to religion - ie. the division of men/women in the mosques, honour killings, genitial mutilation etc. etc. All these traditions have only one purpose - to serve the interest of men, to keep and protect their property, the women.

Don't include division of men and women in the mosque in that list. That serves a very practically and necessary purpose regardless of what sex you are.

The facial veil was never meant to serve the freedom of women - it still isnt.

Its a piece of cloth.

The hijab - although I find it beautiful in many cases - is a similar tradition.

As the sterotypical French pesant will testify.

In conclusion, as I see it - men who are supporting these traditions can only be seen as protecting their OWN interests - by constantly surpressing the freedom of their women - under the cover of ancient traditions.

I have no interest in the hijab or niqab, no-one in my family wears either, but I'll fight for the right for other women to be allowed to wear them if they wish.


When anyone bans, blocks, or discourages a particular freedom, you have to expect that the people you are restricting will not like it. People do not like being forced into not doing something.

Originally posted by S&D He should have dismissed the case. Religion has no grounds in court anyways. Isn't that what we've fought for? You have your freedom of religion, but it doesn't belong in a court room.

Which case is religous, the case against the car dealer or the case of descrimination. You throw either of those out of court and its a break down in the legal system.

Originally posted by Scorpian        A line has to be drawn in the sand someplace. For should we all elect to disregard set rules, laws and dismiss what we don't like then anarchy would reign.       Which group of folks do you reckon will be the hardest hit should law of the jungle be imposed.

Is that a threat? So much for tolerant europe. Let me ask you, what do you think would happen, in a globalised world, if Europe reverted to extreme intollerance? Back into the dark ages as it were.

Originally posted by Styrbion But this is a case of conflicting customs. You are demanding the natives should tolerate the new-comers', while you think the newcomers shouldn't give a damn about the prevalent native customs.

Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself? You should be glad that the new-comers want to live along side you, and want to fit in. When Europe came to our world they just killed the natives on sight. Or, in cases where that wasn't possible, established seperate laws for themselves and forced the natives to copy them... Actually, they still try to force the natives to copy them in the natives own countries. So really, don't try that line until all the aboriginal bones in the british museum are returned to their graves.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself? You should be glad that the new-comers want to live along side you, and want to fit in. When Europe came to our world they just killed the natives on sight. Or, in cases where that wasn't possible, established seperate laws for themselves and forced the natives to copy them... Actually, they still try to force the natives to copy them in the natives own countries. So really, don't try that line until all the aboriginal bones in the british museum are returned to their graves.

I expected more from you than bringing up the past as an excuse for behaviour today.  So if the Asians* went about slaughtering all possible kinds of people 6-700 years ago you think it's ok to slaughter them today?

As I said before I don't mind immigration per se, I'm merely trying to explain for Mortaza this side of the issue and how it is perceived. Don't bring it too far, it's just a school rule, not a total ban or something even remotely similar. As I've repeated endlessly, you aren't allowed to wear caps in school, so I don't understand what the issue with veils is.




*I really meant Mongols, but since you generalize Europe, I feel obliged to return the favour.



Edited by Styrbiorn - 30-Mar-2007 at 09:19

Originally posted by Omar Which case is religous, the case against the car dealer or the case of descrimination. You throw either of those out of court and its a break down in the legal system.

Discrimination? No, reading faces is part of the job and it's something our culture does when we have interaction with each other. The Judge wanted to do the case fairly, to find that both sides are truthful in what they are saying, and this women, living in a country for how many years still doesn't understand our culture? There's a place for your religion, and theres a place for culture, but if they hamper the system of law by not giving everything the Judge needs to make a conclusion, then he shouldn't have to do the case. A Judge needs to see facial expression when the person is questioned by him or a attorney.

But this is a case of conflicting customs. You are demanding the natives should tolerate the new-comers', while you think the newcomers shouldn't give a damn about the prevalent native customs.

Edited by Northman - 30-Mar-2007 at 17:33

I was sort of misunderstood here, I suppose I deserved it actually.

Originally posted by Styrbion I expected more from you than bringing up the past as an excuse for behaviour today.  So if the Asians* went about slaughtering all possible kinds of people 6-700 years ago you think it's ok to slaughter them today?

No the past isn't an excuse for bad behavior. Nor is the present, which is what I was (intending) to talk about. However it annoys me that many europeans constantly and consistantly apply double standards. One for them and one for other. I distinctly recall specific other threads when the European side was arguing that you can be as rude as you want as this is "freedom of expression". Now, apparently, being rude is only allowable by Europeans against muslims, and not the other way around.

Thats a double standard, and thats what annoys me. I disagree that anyone should be allowed to be rude to anyone else, in both cases and both directions.

Originally posted by Scorpion      (My point being) : No one is above the law and should everyone elect themselves to be above the law then we would have anarchy in the streets.  Past and present history has shown that with the breakdown of law and where mob rule is prevalent ethnic minority communities get targeted) Should I write a disclaimer with every post.

Totally agree, but the law must be fair to all people otherwise you get a breakdown anyway. Your governments can't go around critising China for Fallun Gung and then supporting anti-niqab rulings. Thats just double standards.

Originally posted by S&D The Judge wanted to do the case fairly, to find that both sides are truthful in what they are saying, and this women, living in a country for how many years still doesn't understand our culture? There's a place for your religion, and theres a place for culture, but if they hamper the system of law by not giving everything the Judge needs to make a conclusion, then he shouldn't have to do the case. A Judge needs to see facial expression when the person is questioned by him or a attorney.

I know, I agree with the Judge. I would've made the same decision. I'm just saying you can't throw either case out of court, they both have to be given a fair hearing.

Originally posted by Northman Omar - you have a weak case, and I think you know it. You neglected to comment the first part of my post and in your comments below you wrongly assume I support a ban  - did I state that?

It really wasn't a case, I was just curbing the more eccentric statements. I know you don't support a ban, and I think you realise that I sort of do. I say sort of because if this was in America, Australia or any muslim country then I would support a ban in schools, the only reason I don't support it in Europe because, as I have said, it smacks of hipocracy.

I dont care if anyone prefers to wear a potatosack or a Niqab on their head - unless someone has told them to do so. Thats why I cannot respect your claim that wearing it is an expression of freedom. Someone told them to do this.

You cannot say that everyone that wears niqab is doing so because they are forced - which is what you impied before and in this sentence. Most niqabis I know about are converts, they aren't being forced by anyone. You can't fight against authoritarian husbands by banning/discouraging the container.

So you defend the use of a cloth representing female submission - a cloth that you hate and find ridiculous - just because many muslims wrongfully think it represents Islam?

niqab does not represent female submission. This is a misconceived attitude. Its like saying Jeans represents male submission to females

No Omar - dont point fingers - Muslim communities should have abandoned that tradition long ago - why did this not happen?

Why? Its a perfectly good form of clothing.

If this is speculation - Please do explain why this tradition was made in the first place? - and please Omar, you comment about european women is way out of place - you basically say european women need to be half naked to attract a partner.... You really must be running out of arguments to make such a statement - not to mention how offensive it is.

My comment on European women was just a mirror on the comment about Niqabi women. It was intended to be offensive, and I think it did a good job of being equally, and not more, offensive as the remark you made. The niqab is thousands upon thousands of years old, no-one knows why it started. I suspect that it was to keep the dust and sand out of your mouth. If you have ever lived in a dusty place you know that this is a big concern, this is why the sterotypical Queensland farmer doesn't open his mouth when he talks - otherwise the dust & flys get in.

The purpose to be able to worship without getting your thoughts disturbed by looking at the opposit sex, dressed in a fully covered body (and face)? Are muslims that sexobsessed? - I would prefer not to think so.

No-one (practically) wears niqabs in a mosque. When your in the mosque, you are pressed up against the people beside you. You should not be worring (or engineering) who you are pressed up against. I know perfectly well how young men behave around women, regardless of culture religion or anything else, and trust me, segregation in mosques is essential.

Indeed, I come from a farmer family - but I'm not french and I totally fail to see the relevance.

The sterotypical french peasant lady wears a veil.

Apparently, the women in your family have a choice and good for them - I'm afraid this is not the case in all families.

But you can't extend this to all families who have niqabis in them. Cloth does not equal oppression!


...And besides, I don't know about continental europe, but in English speaking countrys hiding your face is not rude, its mysterious and exicting, like Zorro.

A friend of a friend of mine (an Australian) was in school in america, he made a mistake, and unthinkingly swore, the teacher grabbed him and took him to the principles office where his parents were called. When his mother arrived at school she walked into the principles office and said: "Ok, what the bloody hell has he done now?"

Now from what I understand, the Qaran doesn't teach this, but what does the other book say in that Sect?

After a brief read of my summerised Sahih Bukhari (a book of sunnah) I can't find any mention of face covering.

Wow..how did this last 9 pages? together with the usual post pubescent childish drivel of course  I dont really mind schools banning it if they want to, personally, it's up to them.