Iron Lady?

[VinnieK]

If this is to be stopped before it results in civil war, and I kid not, the these colonies must be dismantled and that will involve social engineering on what now muct be an a grand scale.

 

Do you have anything, absolutely anything at all, other than a particular taste for apocalyptic predictions, upon which you're basing this?

 

A common language with the host country is a must. The balance between publishing official documents in a myriad of languages, non of which are (presently) EU languages in order to communicate information to non native speakers has gone much too far and now has the effect of negating the need for people in theses colonies to even learn the language of the host country

 

So, when armageddon comes, we're to blame an arabic language copy of the Health and Safety act . How many times does anyone, immigrant or otherwise, read 'official documents'?

 

No one listened in 1968, Enoch. And I hope we're all level headed enough, as our parents were back then, not to listennow to this unfounded, barely disguised hatred of foreigners.

[FinloYessir]

What about if we all pranced about in Nazi uniforms?

 

But we're not royalty

 

 

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

Good one.

[FinloYessir]

If this is to be stopped before it results in civil war, and I kid not, the these colonies must be dismantled and that will involve social engineering on what now muct be an a grand scale.

 

Do you have anything, absolutely anything at all, other than a particular taste for apocalyptic predictions, upon which you're basing this?

 

A common language with the host country is a must. The balance between publishing official documents in a myriad of languages, non of which are (presently) EU languages in order to communicate information to non native speakers has gone much too far and now has the effect of negating the need for people in theses colonies to even learn the language of the host country

 

So, when armageddon comes, we're to blame an arabic language copy of the Health and Safety act . How many times does anyone, immigrant or otherwise, read 'official documents'?

 

No one listened in 1968, Enoch. And I hope we're all level headed enough, as our parents were back then, not to listennow to this unfounded, barely disguised hatred of foreigners.

 

 

Err....

 

It's the foreigners hating us, actually.

[FinloYessir]

4. They're in a production of The Sound of Music.

 

 

5. They are in news films taken in the late 1930s and the 1940s, and we all know where that went when they refused to remove the uniform.

[Lonan3]

Confusing, though, isn't it?

 

From The Times October 20, 2005:

 

Samira Haddad, 32, a Dutch Muslim woman, is taking legal action against The Islamic College in Amsterdam after it refused to employ her because she did not want to cover her head.

Her insistence on her legal right not to wear a headscarf, or hijab, is a contrast to the campaign fought by Muslim groups across Europe for the right to wear one.

The case comes at a time when the Dutch Government is proposing a partial ban on the burka, including in state schools. The city of Utrecht has recently begun withdrawing unemployment benefits from Muslim women who cannot get jobs because they wear burkas to job interviews.

In a hearing this week, Ms Haddad said that she was told in an interview for a job as an Arabic teacher that because she was a Muslim she had to wear a headscarf if she wanted to work at the school. She explained that she was from Tunisia, where the wearing of hijabs is banned, and she would not feel comfortable doing so.

The Islamic College insists that the Koran requires all Muslim women to wear the hijab.

 

I guess anyone who tries to tell a woman what she can or cannot wear is asking for trouble!

[Lonan3]

Resurrecting this in the wake of the comments made by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw that the veil could be seen as "a visible statement of separation and difference".

 

Personally, I compare this to the wearing of a mask - no matter what the intent (And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness.).

Motor cyclists are asked to remove their helmets before entering most petrol stations; 'hoodies' are being refused entry to shops unless they reveal their faces - why is it necessary to have a separate law for Islamic females?

[John Wright]

Agreed, but no more wearing of crosses (with or without the little man)or skulll caps or stars of david or turbans or red spots in the centre of foreheads or crescents.

 

If we are to be a secular society then we have to go the whole hog.

 

What about pentangles. The wicca religion is now suing the US government to allow wiccan memebers of the US forces to have the wiccan symbol on grave stones at Arlington National Cemetery

[Declan]

What about if we all pranced about in Nazi uniforms?

 

 

Is it possible to wear a nazi uniform without prancing?

[Alias]

Agreed, but no more wearing of crosses (with or without the little man)or skulll caps or stars of david or turbans or red spots in the centre of foreheads or crescents.

That is not the issue, as they do not mask the facial expressions. Straw is saying that it is courteous to remove the veil whilst talking, as it allows for better communication.

[Juan Kerr]

Agreed, but no more wearing of crosses (with or without the little man)or skulll caps or stars of david or turbans or red spots in the centre of foreheads or crescents.

That is not the issue, as they do not mask the facial expressions. Straw is saying that it is courteous to remove the veil whilst talking, as it allows for better communication.

 

All this is bullsh*t at the end of the day.

 

It is rude to mask your identity when you are speaking, and at the end of the day the Burka is only some pathetic way for Muslim men keep control of their women. Its the garment equivalent of "Are you looking at my bird? Mate?" and fit for somewhere around the 13th Century. Its insecurity personified to the nth degree. "You can't look at my bird, so there".

 

In a modern society this is just outdated, and frankly ridiculous. Jack Straw is right the best way for you to isolate yourself from the culture in your adopted country is to put up barriers to communication like this.

 

And yet these same people have the gall to accuse a newsreader who wears a small cross on a necklace of racial insensitivity. Thats one small cross on a chain whilst you are reading the news in Britain, a Christian country.

 

I am sorry but I now follow the Dutch / Australian line. This is how we live in this country, this is what we do. If you accept that then fine, if not there is a plane leaving to somewhere else every 5 minutes.

 

Its only POLITE at the end of the day. If you are a motorcycle courier you would take your helmet off in a bank, or before you spoke to someone. Its just plain RUDE not to have eye contact with someone you are talking to.

[Chinahand]

The news quiz on radio 4 tonight turned it into quite a cutting joke - Jake Straw is clearly a stud. One moment the modestly dressed Muslim lady is insisting on respecting her cultural upbringing the next minute she is rapidly removing her veil all down to Straw's Romeo ways ... and the next visitor to his clinic is a Jewish gentleman, who Straw insists eats some pork sandwitches just to fit in.

 

I can't do the humour, but there are issues of cultural sensitivity in this argument.

 

I agree they work both ways, and trying to have a conversation with someone in a Burhkah must be very difficult; the same with a full veil.

 

I think I agree with Straw ... a head covering ok ... a veil too restrictive.

 

But I'm afraid I think these issues are complex and this is no place for government action. I think it is an issue of consent on both sides ... you want to come into my bank (talk to me in a formal situation), then take off your helmet/veil ... I think thats fine, but there are times when I would be perfectly happy for a muslim women to freely wear a veil ... if she wants to wear one.

 

I think its too easy for people to just go over the top on this and trample on people's rights. People wear wierd stuff ... I'm a lady don't you know ... Jumping to laws and bans is no way to deal with these complex issues.

[Gladys]

Darn it, I posted in reply to an MCB sponsored thread without reading this!

 

I agree that it is not a matter for Governmental intervention, but the question should be asked. Why are you wearing a (face obscuring)veil in a society that doesn't require you to wear one?

 

One of the good things to nearly come out of the Afghanistan 're-alignment' (is that now the right phrase?) was the freedom given to women not to wear the burka. Oh, and not to have their ankles and legs kicked, or to be sorely beaten in the street, because they wore burka that showed a little too much.

 

Nice to see you back though Vinnie, how goes it?

[Politician]

I think there is a fundamental difference between the Dutch position and Jack Straw's. The Dutch government is considering banning the burka because they believe people are using it to disguise their faces whilst committing crime. Jack Straw objects to it on purely ideological grounds, and (I would imagine) because it might help him to pick up a few more right wing votes.

[Lonan3]

I think there is a fundamental difference between the Dutch position and Jack Straw's. The Dutch government is considering banning the burka because they believe people are using it to disguise their faces whilst committing crime. Jack Straw objects to it on purely ideological grounds, and (I would imagine) because it might help him to pick up a few more right wing votes.

Whatever his motives - honourable or not - the fact remains that the veil provides an excellent disguise for those wishing to commit a crime, even such a relatively minor offence as benefit fraud.

If Muslim women choose to wear the full face-covering garment, I believe they must accept that there are places where they will not be welcomed, just as people wearing motor cycling helmets aren't. That does not make it a religious or racial issue - merely a practical one.