Talking to Letterboxes

Just came across Bojo's recent problem about talking to women wearing the full Burka - apparently he doesn't like it ! I think for the first time in history I actually agree with this buffoon on something. Whilst I think that some women wearing a headscarf look incredibly sexy doing it (particularly some of the Persian and Turkish ones), the full Burka is rather a turn off. Like the buffoon, I also have problems talking with someone whose face cannot be seen. The question is - should there be laws on this ? Where should it be allowed, and where not ? Should people be always identifiable in public places ? The BBC have made a bit of a cock up by stating that Denmark, France, Germany and Italy have forbidden it in public places, because I saw a lot of them in Cologne this morning - Germany definitely hasn't done this ! Would such a ban be an unwarranted invasion of the private sphere, or would it be justifiable ? I have to say that I have not found anything in the Koran regarding this - despite their claims of it being a religious duty.

 

It is banned in France on both security and outward signs of religious symbols grounds. Before the ban I found it very uncomfortable to not know who was behind the mask. There was a bit of a shambles on some of the beaches last summer when Muslim women donned full bathing gear that only showed their faces. Some of the local mayors tried to ban them, while others didn't bother. I believe it finished up in the courts, but don't know the result, or if it has been heard yet.

 

I can understand the logic of banning it on grounds of security Frenchie, but not on the grounds of wearing religious symbols. Although I believe the full covering to be more of a cultural thing than actually conforming to the dictates of the Koran, some people still believe it to be a religious symbol, and that is what is important. How many Catholics would tolerate being told to remove a crucifix from around their necks ? The same applies to Hindu women and the orange/red spot on the forehead - how can you regulate such a thing ? Many religions have some rules or norms regarding clothing - look at how Puritan women were dressed in the 19th Century. Isn't it better to tolerate all of them, on the grounds of mutual respect, rather than to go for a bland neutrality in such things ? I know the French have a bit of a hang up about this - hence the removal of Christmas trees from schools there.

 

There is a strange mix of rules here because of the separation of the state and church. Schools in the public sector are not allowed any symbols, whereas that doesn't apply to private schools that still have to follow the curriculum and are largely financed by the state. Schools can allow 'small' items that show that the pupil follows a faith, without trying to say what is small. Companies can set dress codes that might bar symbols, including a crucifix, but that has to apply to all employees equally.

 

I would have thought that any ban on religious symbols of dress could only be pushed through if the item constituted a risk to health and safety, or to public order Frenchie. The onus would be on the state to prove this to be the case, otherwise there would be problems with International human rights laws.

 

The law was challenged in the European Court of Human Right, but the court accepted that it was about how people lived together. I am sure there was a lot more to it than that, but it was challenged.

 

Our son spent some time in Afghanistan working for an NGO.. When he did clinics, he said it was almost impossible to diagnose any female condition because of the burka - and the cloth is thick, so as well as not being able to make any connnection with the person, he couldn't identify where any problem might be located.

 

Surely that should have been done by a woman doctor ? As far as I know a strictly Islamic married woman should not be alone with a man she is not related to so if a nurse were there the problem may not have arisen.

 

To tolerate the burka is to tolerate intolerance.

 

Ok. Fez, but to not tolerate it means to ban it ie. to try to tell other people what they should, or should not, be wearing. I can understand banning it in some areas where the inability to recognize someone could constitute a security risk, but only for this reason. To ban it on the grounds of banning all religious symbols is a dangerous step......could you ban wedding rings as well ? To ban it on the grounds that it denies Women their rights ? Difficult, because you could say that they have the right to wear it. I also find the Burka just as insulting to us men, because it presumes that we have nothing better to do than look at women the whole day. However, we would need to have the moral high ground for that type of criticism, and we don't have that. How can we, in the land of the Herbertstraße (Reeperbahn) hold the moral high ground regarding women's rights ? Actually Turkey has more women in their civil service than Germany does, and pays them more compared to the men. So we need to get our own house in order first.

 

I think relatives were present. As it was in the countryside, Kabul 150 miles away , and across no-mans land , it would have been tricky waiting for one to appear.

 

I didn't suggest that there was an easy solution. I take issue with the women's rights... they're either intimidated, beaten, or brainwashed into it. There is no place for this garb in a civilised society.

 

This is complicated, but I think I agree with Fez, here. I think that the covering is, in essence, illiberal. The suggestion of banning something illiberal does not offend me.
Btw, cologne, wedding rings are not always a religious symbol. Mine and Mrs Andy’s certainly are not.

 

The burka is a nasty example of male domination. Men who are uncomfortable with looking at females or are afraid "their" female will be ogled by other men have twisted their religion into suppressing and subjugating women - in contradiction to the koran.
That is their business in private. Even in public if women are willing to be treated in this way then so be it. I would not try to stop them. However there are places where wearing masks and disguises is potentially dangerous and security in places like banks or other public buildings is enhanced if we can see people's faces.

 

Whilst I do not feel comfortable in talking only to a pair of eyes, I think that it may just be my problem and I have to cope with it. There are 3 ways of handling this - the first is to say that all people should be recognizable, in the interests of security. The second being an objection to the public wearing of all religious symbols, and the third being our interpretation that the burka is tantamount to subjugation of women. I have problems with all of these. The first one ie. people should be recognizable at all times in public - does this forbid the wearing of false beards ? If this law was really implemented then the Cologne Carnival would be dead, and all the rehearsals for it. Religious clothing ? Also difficult in Cologne because it is not uncommon to see nuns walking around here - and there is not so much difference in appearance. The third point of subjugation of women - is this only our interpretation ? Some Moslems would laugh and wave a copy of Playboy in your face as an example of our society creating sex objects of women - and they would be right. Do women wearing the veil really feel subjugated ? The ones that I have spoken to do not see it in that way - and, in some cases, have done it against the wishes of their men. It is true that orthodox Islamic societies separate the Worlds of men and women - in Iran, houses often have 2 separate entrances. But a curious by product of that is that Iran actually has more women working in their civil service, and as doctors than we do in the West - and their pay is on the same level as their men. Nonetheless, I still feel uncomfortable talking to letter boxes !

 

It's not in contradiction or a twist to subjugate women, it is the faith. We should be wary of apologising for it. In public they are hidden. In private they are at the beck and call of the husband.

 

The more one reads the koran, the more one realises that it is a sex cult. A violent one at that. And, as non-believers in their particular flavour of abrahamic nonsense, we are the lowest of the low especially atheists like myself, we are worse than that. We do not count.

 

Maybe the issue needs to be addressed but not in the way that BJ comments about it.

He is the biggest clown and it just shows that any muppet can be a politician. To think he was the foreign secretary, wasn't he? God I hope not. FFS, democracy really worked well there, didn't it?

I can gob out a fair bit of dross but at least only a select few have to put up with it.

 

Quite right, Mex. It does ably demonstrate the sort of democracy we truly have here, when a bigoted, clumsy twat like him represents us at international level.

 

As an atheist, you (and I ) are the lowest of the low to all religions, Fez, not just Islam.