General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?
Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?
http://cloudmind.info/hijab-niqab-and-burka-faq/
More and more Muslims are immigrating into western nations with varying degrees of success.
Canada, not generally known as racist or intolerant, being a nation of immigrants, do not seem to have much use or tolerance for Muslim customs and having a religion dictate what women will wear.
http://www.therebel.media/in_quebec_the_niqab_issue?utm_campaign=rr_09_25_15&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel
Is Canada becoming intolerant and fed up with religions or is there some other reason for Canadian hard line against hijab niqab and burka?
What of the U.S.?
Canada has not had a lot of problems to date. A few Honor killings when the young have refused to dress in the traditional way. I think that I would vote with the vast majority just to end Canadian Honor killings. I also see this as a safety issue in the sense that in a nation where so many do a lot of driving, to add blind spots caused by head and face wear seems like a poor idea.
To be frank though, I see Christianity and Islam as homophobic and misogynous religions and would vote for any measure that would reduce misogyny.
Are the large majority in Canada and elsewhere who would outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka wrong?
Regards
DL
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)ret5hd
(20,491 posts)on edit: including makeup for those that need a "melanin correction".
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)kentauros
(29,414 posts)"Now, you know it's up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare minimum. Or... well, like Brian, for example, has thirty seven pieces of flair, okay. And a terrific smile."
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)olddots
(10,237 posts)Humans should be banned ,outlawed and ostrasized .
H2O Man
(73,536 posts)Glorfindel
(9,726 posts)As someone who just cancelled three subscriptions to National Geographic, I truly don't like seeing Rupert Murdoch's network being promoted on Democratic Underground.
GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)That's a riot. I live near one of the so-called No Go Zones and the only thing I can say is that whoever came up with this idea has Never Gone to any of them.
Racist, disgusting garbage. With a dose of irony - you'd prefer governments "dictate what women will wear" rather than religion? I always thought religious freedom and personal liberty were so important to the RW?
I'd suggest getting to know some Muslims. Ask a woman in a burqa why she wears it. Ask a woman who doesn't wear any traditional coverings why she doesn't. Maybe you'll learn that Muslims are individual human fucking beings and not racial stereotypes.
Has it ever occurred to you that some DUers are Muslim? Maybe your neighbor is. Guess what - they are all around you and you clearly don't even know it (ooooh, scary!)
This OP would be sad if it weren't so funny.
sarisataka
(18,600 posts)I remember reading some ideas for controlling unwanted religions that were implemented in the 30's. I believe they were considered quite successful in some circles.
Iggo
(47,549 posts)Greatest I am
(235 posts)Here you guys are, free to dress as you like, yet you will not fight to have the same freedom given to those who are being denied that right by misogynistic and immoral men.
Change the labels in this quote to women being denied equality, minorities, gays or children being brainwashed by religions and it shows what we should be thinking and doing for each other.
"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)
What a pathetic bunch of free men you are. You would not be free if someone else had not fought for you yet you will not fight for the freedom of others.
No wonder the U.S. is in a moral tail spin.
Regards
DL
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)about the absurd propaganda in your OP, and defend your argument (which is what, exactly? Muslims are scary?) you give us a word salad of moral judgement and platitudes that isn't even logically consistent.
Way to make a point!
(eta: just realized how few specific points of argument were actually made on this thread, other than my earlier post, but I understand why people didn't even bother and stuck with mockery because your links deserve to be mocked and you are clearly not here to discuss this topic in good faith)
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)You're wearing out the patience of the people on this site. Please stop now.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Speaking as a Native American, I get kind of antsy when a bunch of white folk start talking about civilizing the savages.
Banning religious coverings won't stop the women that are forced to wear them from being forced to wear them. It means they'll just be even more isolated while they're wearing them, so the men will have even MORE control over them, and they'll have absolutely no hope of escape. The people supporting bans know good and goddamned well that that will be the result. They just don't care. As long as they don't have to look at them, the problem doesn't exist.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)How exactly is the U.S. in a moral tail spin?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)What do you mean by that?
Your slip . . . I mean hood is showing.
underahedgerow
(1,232 posts)That's fair, right?
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Because of anti-masking laws passed in order to stop the KKK from concealing their identity with hoods.
It would make for an interesting Constitutional test to see it applied against a burqua- because is the law is ruled to not apply there than the "Christian" Knights of the KKK can claim religious exemption as well...
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)moondust
(19,972 posts)I tend to see Europe as a little bit different because of the greater numbers of immigrants from the "Muslim world," associated radicalism, and security concerns over public concealment.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)Why would anyone care what Muslim women wear? I see Muslim women in tradition dress frequently here in Minnesota. I also see Mennonite women in their modest clothing. Should I be afraid of any of them. You've picked the wrong forum for this nonsense, frankly.
tishaLA
(14,176 posts)...or will. Because it has no place at DU
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I'm shocked the decision was 3 for blocking. I could understand if it stimulated hate expression, but that is hardly what is happening here.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)FOX news interviewing some end-times religious right fucknut about "Muslim No-Go Zones in the US"?
It's complete and utter bullshit. Might as well be "Planned Parenthood eats babies"
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)JI7
(89,247 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)As much as that pisses off the crowd on DU who wants to outlaw bikinis.
Skittles
(153,150 posts)when I see a gal in Texas dressed like that in very hot weather and she's with a guy in tank top and shorts........it sucks
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)fucked up to me.
I don't get it. Same with almost any situation where people try to tell other people (often women) how they ought to live their lives. My instinct is to be like "screw that! Don't listen to these idiots, do what you want, what makes you comfortable, what makes you happy! Make your own choices and choose what you like no matter what the self-appointed authorities say you need to do"
But, if someone says "hey, I choose to wear the full body black covering outfit in 100 degree weather" what can you do?
Skittles
(153,150 posts)they can't even if they wanted to, because they would be ostracized by their faith / community / family / friends
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But I'm not sure how you address that through legislation in a pluralistic society with religious freedom under the 1st Amendment.
Skittles
(153,150 posts)it's going to be a huge adjustment - the men need to understand women have rights, and the women need to understand they have more choices
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)How to get the goose out of the bottle without breaking the bottle?
You can't.
The goose has to get itself out of the bottle.
But you can feed the goose until it is able to. Until it decides to.
A good primer for our foreign policy, as well.
Skittles
(153,150 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)That's beach wear /swim wear, and is not at all comparable to the hiding of the shamefully slutty hair and face.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Still, I don't see how you can legislate against people wearing all sorts of religious coverings, even in extremely uncomfortable weather, if they insist they're doing it by choice.
I may think it's backwards, but that's not the same thing as outlawing it.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)There are more and more of them here in europe. I'm sure many of these women feel naked without covering their entire slutty faces, but, they should realize they look like freaks when they are the only ones wearing it.
There is still no ban on horrified stares.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)a la izquierda
(11,791 posts)think this prohibition is a bunch of bullshit. FYI.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Should countries outlaw the wearing of a cross necklace or the hats that Amish men wear? How about turbans?
DustyJoe
(849 posts)People wearing what could be considered a 'uniform', whether a skinhead with a sleeveless t-shirt, a gangbanger with his pants dragging the floor, a priest or nuns habit, a yarmulka, bikers jacket and colors or a muslim wearing muslim garb all serve to identify their affiliations to others openly, not covertly hiding behind a disguise. Personally i'd rather see a persons leanings in the open described by their garb. Let people wear what they identify with, makes it easier for all.
ancianita
(36,023 posts)one wills to wear or not wear such clothing.
I can understand that current laws about clothing are attempts to force people to adapt to the majority secular cultures which allow religion, just not its public displays, the idea being that people should keep their beliefs and intimate behaviors private. Majority secular cultures probably don't want public competition for hearts and minds, and that that particular goal should take place in other arenas like churches, synagogues and mosques. The West likes to keep boundaries between the public and private worlds.
But personally, what I think should be outlawed is the punishment and threat of punishment -- verbal as well as physical -- of any child or adult who chooses to follow or not follow their family's teachings, which might come from religions, politics or other structures that manipulate free will. Does that translate into clothing codes? I'm really not sure, but I'd guess that secular societies will want religious symbolism out of their commons.
Free will makes justice. To curb free will diminishes free thinking and a free society. Laws should only protect free will decisions, not curb them.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)I hardly notice the scarves anymore, unless they are a beautiful print, and some of them are quite lovely. But I would guess some wouldn't see that, only that they are covering up. It's interesting how that was never a problem for Americans in the 50s and 60s when it was a style...
closeupready
(29,503 posts)in Times Square, bring back dress codes, and at least be consistent in your push to legislate Christian morality.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Over on another thread I talked about the difference between assimilation and integration. If you outlaw them you are forcing people to assimilate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027208015#post47
JI7
(89,247 posts)women wear like pics below .
and i am neither christian or muslim.
I was thinking the same thing.
This would make me wish to meet the creator, stat!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Personally, I like the hedonistic naked people who don't give a shit.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)by a different group of men dictating what they can and can't wear.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I mean, fuck. The "No-Go Zones" in question are pretty obviously what are otherwise known in the parlance as, "private property". There are probably a whole ton of places in the US where you couldn't drive a truck with a camera crew uninvited up onto some guy's yard without him freaking the fuck out or at least telling you you couldn't "go" there.
Cliven Bundystan, anyone?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/sharia.asp
Seriously, man.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Yes, they should be allowed to wear those garments if they want to. People need to quit trying to police what people wear. If it doesn't hurt you or others what you wear should be legal.
Yes they should be allowed to wear them if they feel their religion requires it.
And the "no-go" zones stuff is RW propaganda.[/font]
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Headquarters Toronto, Ontario
Website www.therebel.media
The Rebel Media (or The Rebel) is a Canadian online conservative political and social commentary media platform founded in February 2015 by former Sun News Network host Ezra Levant following the demise of the 24-hour news and opinion cable channel. The Rebel Media broadcasts its content on the Rebel Media YouTube channel and the therebel.media webpage.
The project emulates American conservative commentator Glenn Beck's subscription based online service TheBlaze.
Why is this garbage allowed here? Why are people voting to keep right-wing trash?
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Why not the Thawb, Keffiyeh, Songkok, Jellabiya, etc.?
Then while we are at it, why single out a particular religion? Why not the Yarmulke, Sheitel, Tichel, Zucchetto, Fez, Turban, etc.?