[Closed] Muslim Folks: help me defeat this xenophobic nonsense

Precisely cougar, for those that really fail to get it... FGM is the equivalent to someone chopping your entire cock off.

They're both "wrong" but they're vastly different degrees of wrong.

So you do not see any difference between that and type III FGM

Of course I do, as indicated by the bit where I said [i]"Yes of course it is"[/i]

Really if you can't understand my point in the context that it was made and insist on trying to persuade me that I somehow support FGM then you are ineffectually bankrupt and a traitor to something-or-other. 😆

The whole male circumcision = mutilation is a bit odd IMO. The practice was relatively common in many societies and it's relatively recent the the health profession stopped discussing it as on option for male babies on perceived health rather than religious grounds in the UK. But I do not recall circumcised blokes being up-in-arms about it and have certainly never heard anyone screaming, "I've been mutilated"! Your either a Roundhead or a Cavalier - well that's all it was in my schooldays!

Really if you can't understand my point in the context

You were defending FGM in the context of western male circumcision. Which I find abhorrent - as I said, it's intellectually bankrupt. You would rather make a postmodern and culturally sensitive statement than actually deal with the real elephant in the room eg the oppression of women.

FGM is OK because they're foreign? Don't know any better? That kind of thing?

It's very hard to tell an extreme racist from an extreme not racist on here.

Roundhead or a Cavalier - well that's all it was in my schooldays!

But I do not recall circumcised blokes being up-in-arms about it and have certainly never heard anyone screaming, "I've been mutilated"!

*thinking about it I've no idea when or whether it was for medical reasons or just someone thought it was a good idea at the time.

just someone thought it was a good idea at the time.

You were defending FGM in the context of western male circumcision. Which I find abhorrent

No, no I wasn't, I think I've made that quite clear and no matter how many times you say that it won't be true!

But do feel free to keep finding my entirely fictitious defence abhorrent as it clearly amuses you for some reason.

You would rather make a postmodern and culturally sensitive statement than actually deal with the real elephant in the room eg the oppression of women.

Would I? Blimey. There was me thinking we were talking about the ability to freely choose what to wear on your head.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to make the conversation about mutilating genitals. It's a bit worrying to be honest. Perhaps you should seek some kind of help?

So why respond to the comment about FGM in the way you did?

I find the big beards as offensive as the burka

[img] [/img]

It's one religious group being provocative towards another.

Your either a Roundhead or a Cavalier - well that's all it was in my schooldays!

You were defending FGM in the context of western male circumcision

Cougars example is correct they are both wrong though one is clearerly more wrong

So child genital mutilation is ok as log as you only do it a little bit, on males.

It's either wrong or it isn't - you can't have one rule for women and one rule for men. 😉

Broadly speaking cultural sensitivity towards Muslims is a good thing, as there are lots of bigoted arseholes out there who would love to make an issue of things like this for no good reason.

Ahem....due...I'm sure.. to the influence of multiculturalism...many of the posters on here remind me of this. "We are feminists. We are incredibly right-on. We read the Guardian. We disapprove of women's breasts getting a public airing and we strongly object to the fact that boards of directors are not 50% female. We will go absolutely ballistic if anyone dare understate how vile domestic violence is, or attempt in any way to justify it. We are feminists you see. Oh, but only when it comes to white women – did we mention that?"

So why respond to the comment about FGM in the way you did?

You mean [b]in the context[/b], as an answer to surfers question: [i]"Would we find female genital mutilation acceptable if we found victims of it who did?"[/i]

As I said:

I was making the point that we already accept men who chop bits off themselves and their baby sons because their God/scripture/culture told them to.

An observation. Simple as that.

I didn't state if I agreed or disagreed with circumcision. I [i]definitely[/i] didn't say that I agreed with FGM (and in case it's still not clear, I don't).

surfer made an interesting point, which does (did) have some relevance to my whole "veil != oppression" argument. And I commented on it. That is all.

We are feminists you see. Oh, but only when it comes to white women – did we mention that?"

I guess you didn't read the bit where I said that the burka/niqab makes me feel deeply uncomfortable and how I suspect it is used as a means of controlling women.

Or did it just not fit into your Richard Littlejohn-esque 'point'?

Google "shiite Iraq emo" or similar, Junkyard, for examples of where the absence of religious symbolic conformisme can lead. I've never said anything about being atheist on this forum.

As I said:

I was making the point that we already accept men who chop bits off themselves and their baby sons because their God/scripture/culture told them to.

But why make that point, when clearly FGM is a whole other ball game? Shouldn't you instead have voiced your opposition to FGM and ALSO your opposition to male circumcision?

Grum, that post wasn't really aimed at you really, I had read what you mentioned.

But why make that point, when clearly FGM is a whole other ball game?

Trying to claim there is no relation between the two is just as big a fallacy as claiming they are the same (which no-one here has actually done).

FGM is OK because they're foreign? Don't know any better? That kind of thing?

It's very hard to tell an extreme racist from an extreme not racist on here.

They're different you see. They come from funny countries where people are a bit strange and where women don't seem to mind a punch in the mouth quite as much our women would. We can't possibly be expected to stand up with women against violence and oppression. Violence is in their culture. People like Edukator and Surfer should stop being such racists and accept it.

Your straw man trolling is getting a bit tedious. No-one here has argued in favour of FGM, wife-beating, or even the wearing of the burqa/niqab. Saying the burqa shouldn't be banned is a completely different thing.

But why make that point, when clearly FGM is a whole other ball game?

Okay clearly I do need to spell this one out:

I made that point precisely [i]BECAUSE[/i] it is a whole other ball game!

surfer challenged my argument (that the veil is not oppression if a woman makes an open and free choice to wear it) by raising the notion of hypothetical women that make an open and free choice to suffer FGM.

Now I'm not sure if such women exist in reality (you'd think not but there's a lot of people in the world so who knows) - but to my mind that is a [i]"whole other ball game"[/i] compared to wearing a veil.

There are, however, a very large number of men who make an [i]"open and free choice"[/i] to cut off part of their genitals and those of their baby sons. A (very minor by comparison) form of "male genital mutilation".

That action seems to me to be more on a par with the wearing of a veil or niqab.

Yet when we see a circumcised man we don't immediately decide he has been oppressed and needs to be rescued.

With me?

Tom you are having an argument with people who also agree the FGM is incorrect and you are mocking them as well
How many times does someone have to say they dont agree with FGM before you can move on?

but only when it comes to white women

I think you should start a thread on this- I dont think anyone will say it is anything other than wrong but you may find someone to debate it with.
Edukator it was a largely flippant post which i assumed the santa would have shown

What you trying to do here look stupid by suggesting we are all racist?

More that you don't have the guts to condemn what is the real problem, the oppression of women instead of what some random cockwomble posted on facebook.

So people being bigots isn't a real problem, because some other bad stuff happens somewhere else? 'Whattaboutery' at its finest.

I must remember in future if I criticise/discuss anything I must simultaneously criticise [i]everything else that's wrong in the world.[/i]

So people being bigots isn't a real problem, because some other bad stuff happens somewhere else? 'Whattaboutery' at its finest.

It's a problem because the left and many feminists routinely condemn what happens in our own country and routinely fail to help liberate women from oppression in other countries because of "cultural sensitivities". In other words, condemnation of other cultures by the left clashes with their own multicultural instincts even if those cultures are utterly despicable. "It's in their culture" becomes an excuse for violent and repressive behavior.

urfer challenged my argument (that the veil is not oppression if a woman makes an open and free choice to wear it) by raising the notion of hypothetical women that make an open and free choice to suffer FGM.

Now I'm not sure if such women exist in reality (you'd think not but there's a lot of people in the world so who knows) - but to my mind that is a "whole other ball game" compared to wearing a veil.

There are, however, a very large number of men who make an "open and free choice" to cut off part of their genitals and those of their baby sons. A (very minor by comparison) form of "male genital mutilation".

That action seems to me to be more on a par with the wearing of a veil or niqab.

Yet when we see a circumcised man we don't immediately decide he has been oppressed and needs to be rescued.

When are women expected to start wearing the veil? I'd only agree with male circumcision if done after the age of consent.

I am not sure where you think anyone has said its ok to oppress women could you highlight this?

Y'know when you said the other day:

Tom_W1987:
I'm going to have a lot of fun with this thread when I get round to having the time to do so.

I didn't think that "fun" would involve trolling a quite interesting thread to death by essentially making up random points and accusing people of supporting FGM and the oppression of women 🙄

(not to mention "a traitor to western liberal values" and "the worst kind of left wing apologist" which I like so much I now have it as the About Me on facebook)

I am not sure where you think anyone has said its ok to oppress women could you highlight this?

I'll just go ahead and save myself time by quoting this. Note the bit relevant to the bikini argument.

It’s time for feminists (male or female) to bring some clarity to the debate about the burqa. The discussion at the moment is dominated by two arguments that defend the burqa from criticism, both coming mainly from female Muslim academics who work and publish from comfortable posts in prominent universities in the United States or Europe, who do not live under the constraints of Sharia law.

The first of these arguments treats the rise of voluntary veiling in the West as a rejection of colonial influence. On this view, visible or externalised changes in Muslim women’s dress codes are interpreted as concessions to the coloniser or as attempts to assimilate to “superior” Western influences. Accordingly the veil functions primarily as a symbol of resistance to the colonising narrative of the quintessential “otherness” and inferiority of Islam. To dispute this argument is to reinforce a form of colonial domination.

The second argument is that the veil is a form of resistance to the West’s sexualisation and objectification of women. The assertion is that Western societies, no less than Islamic ones, pressure women into adopting forms of dress (and undress) that are intended to gratify the “male gaze” and turn women into sex objects. From this perspective, it is a bit rich for Western women (who “voluntarily” wear high heels, short skirts and make-up) to criticise Muslim women for choosing to wear coverings that liberate them from this sexist gaze. To dispute this argument is to suggest, implicitly or not, that Western freedom trumps Muslim puritanism.

In response to the first argument, it should be obvious that to oppose aspects of Islam that have institutionalised a gender hierarchy (or even apartheid) and silenced voices of equity for women is not to (mis)represent Islam per se as “inferior”. Western liberals and feminists have had their own battle with Christian sexism, and it is far from over. To think that criticising Islamic sexism is the same as saying that Islam is inferior implies that any critique of Islamic sexism excludes similar critiques of Christian or Jewish sexism, and is tantamount to a blanket rejection of Islam. It also implies that such a critique cannot be shared by Muslims themselves, or always represents a refusal to acknowledge Islam’s complexity. All but the most obtuse Westerners recognise that there are divergent beliefs within Islam about the practice of veiling and that many Muslims have argued for its abolition. Moreover, many Western critics of Islamic sexism think that Western patriarchal religious traditions (or even secular ones) are equally if not more oppressive and irrational than Islamic ones. Critiquing one does not imply condoning the other.

The desire to engage with Islam in critical argument and debate is not a form of disrespect but of esteem. Westerners who refuse to do so patronise Muslims and hypocritically oppose sexist practices and beliefs only where it is “politically correct” or expedient to do so. Not only are they fair-weather feminists, they also treat Islam with a special sensitivity that they do not grant to other religions, not because they really respect Islamic sexism, but because they are reluctant to be labelled “Islamophobic” or “racist” (since any criticism of Islamic sexism is likely to be misrepresented as such). Concern for, rather than indifference to, the plight of women living under Sharia law in sexist theocracies is anything but racism. In expressing human solidarity with these women, Westerners are not assuming their culture’s superiority over Islamic culture, but feminism’s superiority over sexism – a view that is exclusive to no particular culture and is certainly not absent from Islamic culture and religion. Western indifference to the fate of women from other cultural or religious backgrounds is far more racist than demonstrating interest in their struggle for human rights. Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity. There are plenty of non-white people, men and women, who disagree with Islamic misogyny and homophobia.

The second argument, concerning sexist objection in Western cultures, rests on two problematic assumptions. First, that Western feminist critics of the burqa do not oppose the sexualisation of the female body within their own culture and so have no right to talk about it in other cultures. This is flatly contradicted by the fact that Western feminists maintain a trenchant critique of sexual objectification “at home”. This defensive argument also rests on the assumption that you cannot be a “good” feminist if you regard the (shame-free) sexualisation of the female body as potentially empowering for women as autonomous sexual subjects.

This argument trades on the tu quoque ad hominem fallacy, or, in plain English, the “and that goes double for you” fallacy. The issue is not whether Western women are guilty of a similar form of capitulation to that of Muslim women, but whether the pressure on females to acquiesce to “feminine” dress codes (in either culture) amounts to sexist oppression. And even if Western women are not fully liberated, this has no bearing on their ability to oppose forms of sexism in other cultures as well as in their own. But the assertion that women who are sexualised (or not ashamed of their own sexual desires) are “oppressed” needs to be addressed and discussed too. If female sexual agency is somehow shameful while male sexual agency isn’t, then this needs to be argued for with good reasons. Male and female feminists should welcome a discussion of these double standards.

In Islamic cultures the predominant theological reasoning for veiling seems to be that the female body is such a powerful sexual object that nothing short of covering it can prevent men from molesting it. According to Islamic Hadith (or poor interpretations of it) the female body is so powerfully sexual that it is literally irresistible to the opposite sex. I refer those who argue that this is a misinterpretation of Islam to this statement by Australia’s influential senior Islamic cleric, Sheik Taj Aldin as-Hilali:

“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside. . . without cover, and the cats come to eat it. . . whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.”

Some Westernised Muslim academics deny the primary theological significance of the burqa and instead claim that it is imbued with powerful symbolism by Western colonialism. Westerners, they argue, see the burqa as a symbol of the irrevocable “otherness” of Muslims. Accordingly the “hysterical” reactions to veiling are just a Western contrivance (a pretext for racist attitudes towards Muslims following 9/11). Yet the discourse vacillates between this claim and the contradictory claim that the veil has no special significance other than what the wearer intends it to mean, and so is no more than a form of personal expression – a symbol of Muslim women’s freedom to “be themselves”.

Sharia law is still enforced in approximately 35 nations, where some form of veiling is compulsory. An estimated 83 Sharia courts operate in England today. Many Muslim families living in Western Europe use legal forms of coercion to make girls and women conform to veiling. The murder of Shafilea Ahmed, by her own parents, is a case study in how Europeans respond to these situations of family violence with an embarrassed silence, rather than the kind of outrage that would be seen as appropriate were its victims not exclusively female. The Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (Ikwro) found last year that 39 out of 52 police forces across the UK had recorded at least 2,823 “honour” attacks over 2010. Some forces showed a jump of nearly 50 per cent in such cases from 2009. This is the backdrop against which Muslims in Europe claim that wearing the burqa is a “choice”.

The claim that covering yourself up in public is an empowering choice insults the intelligence and dignity of women everywhere, just as the theological claim that the burqa is a necessary defence against predatory male sexuality insults Muslim men insofar as it treats them as fundamentally incapable of responsibility for their sexual behaviour.

The reason Western feminists (male or female) object to seeing women in burqas is not that we can’t tolerate diversity, but that the burqa is a symbol of patriarchal Islam’s intolerance of dissent and desire to contain and repress female sexuality.

Blimey if that briefly summarises your thoughts on the matter then no wonder you're confused. 😆

Unfortunately the article destroys just about every argument you've come up with Graham.

Although as others have noticed, I was just having fun earlier. I was saving that article for use as a nuclear option after dragging you guys down to a certain level of idiocy.

British law is "common law" rather than "civil law", cheeky boy. Common law is based on rulings which are based on the customs of the country. In the case of the UK, the customs of a society based on the Christian ethics found in the New Testament. Whilst the influence of the protestant church on the judicial system is declining it should not be underestimated. Cases where the church view does not prevail make headlines.

Am I wrong in saying that this common law is relatively fair and gives adequate protection to our freedoms ?
I for one quite enjoy living in the UK !
Currently working in West Africa were the law appears to be there to protect only those who can afford it.

Ah public schools eh

So you never had showers at school then JY?!? 😉

as i dont really care

+1 hence can get my head around the mutilation stuff. All pretty OTT IMO.

FWIW, the WHO is supporting male circumcision as a means to tackling HIV - are they also evil mutilators? I doubt it!!

So Tom does "having a bit of fun..dragging you guys down" = trolling?

dragging you guys down to a certain level of idiocy.

And then defeating us through experience 😆

Unfortunately the article destroys just about every argument you've come up with Graham.

Much as I enjoyed that article in all its magniloquence and sesquipedalian loquaciousness, no, I don't think it addresses every argument.

It offers a few counters. Some of them even have quite valid points lurking amongst the verbal jungle.

But I suggest you put that article to the young muslim women in [url= http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/beyond-the-veil-londons-burka-wearers-go-on-the-defensive-6532864.html ]Evening Standard article I linked to earlier[/url]:

A group of teenage Bengali-speaking girls, all wearing hijabs (headscarves), skinny jeans and high-street dresses, giggle in a collective huddle when I ask why they choose to wear the headscarf. "'Cos we're Muslims," says 16-year-old Zainab Zaman, suppressing a "durr!". "And you can tell that instantly. That's our identity, it's who we are."

Mishal Akhtar, 23, a part-time hijab wearer who works for a fashion magazine, believes wearing a headscarf can "actually be a bit punk. In your teens, in London, it's fashionable and cool — it's another accessory. It also marks you out and makes you belong at the same time. So yes, the appeal is really obvious."

Fatima Barktulla, 31, a cheery pregnant mother of three boys who was born and grew up in Hackney, elaborates: "I started with the hijab, but when I got married I wanted to wear the niqab It isn't a rejection of society, or an attempt to be different. It's not a political statement either."

Does she feel it might be perceived as such? "No woman I know who wears a niqab is doing it to make a huge point. It's a personal, spiritual conviction. And I know that the niqab is a virtuous option and it is not obligatory."

They don't sound very oppressed to me.

But y'know I'm sure they'd welcome non-muslim Westerners [i]rescuing[/i] them by banning them from choosing what they wear on their head and forcing them into something they may feel is less "virtuous".

Although as others have noticed, I was just having fun earlier.

Bet you're a riot at parties.

They don't sound very oppressed to me.

But y'know I'm sure they'd welcome non-muslim Westerners rescuing them by banning them from choosing what they wear on their head and forcing them into something they may feel is less "virtuous".

The hijab is on a somewhat different level compared to the burqa in terms of the demographics of those who wear it. The women who do quite often come from a more moderate background, whilst those who wear the burqa do not. Not that it makes the headscarf much better but it is a much milder form of repression.

However, on the topic of both the headscarf and the burqa! You've have chosen a small sample of supportive muslim women, you will find if you look for them - many muslim women who say the same thing that I have. I was reading an article somewhere written by a muslim feminist who found it offensive that westerners sought the advice of muslim women about the headscarf to justify an unwillingness to criticize head wear. I would also argue that some Muslim women are willing to look past the repressive origins of the the hijab/burqa purely to distinguish themselves and rebel against the west.

Personally, I have not seen one argument from yourself that justifies special treatment in the eyes of the state when being asked to remove clothing that covers the face. Religion should not be given special consideration - at all - in a western society. Which is what this thread was originally about, if you do support special treatment for them you have capitulated to theocracy.

Tom I meant on here not in general, was that not obvious?
I am aware some folk do not treat all women well and that not all of them are Muslims.
If banning the wearing of this liberated all women from oppression then count me in.
Clearly it will not and will, at best, simply change who is being oppressed from those "forced" to wear it to those no longer able to choose to wear it.
Its not a solution to the problem it simply changes the victims.

So you never had showers at school then JY?!?

Graham you are not a left wing apologist as you are just too wet ..come the revolution I shall let you have the transport dept though 😉

if you look for them - many muslim women who say the same thing that I have

I have not seen one argument from yourself that justifies special treatment in the eyes of the state when being asked to remove clothing that covers the face

Religion should not be given special consideration - at all - in a western society.*

No one offered one they simply explained simple practical measures to allow a female to view them in private.

Special treatment.

Trying to claim there is no relation between the two is just as big a fallacy as claiming they are the same (which no-one here has actually done).

Phallusy, heh.

Except, it's not, is it. Male circumcision is done for a variety of reasons, it's not solely a religious decision. Offhand, in the US something like 80% of male children are circumcised; in the rest of the Western world it's about 20%.

The reasons cited are many, with varying levels of credence. Religion is the obvious one of course; there's also a (misguided) belief that it's more hygienic; "we want him to look like his father" (aka, 'we've always done it); habit - sometimes the operation is performed automatically as it's assumed to be the norm; anecdotally, a close American friend chose to have her son done because they didn't want him to look unusual compared to his peers. And so on. The operation is a removal of a bit of skin, usually performed on newborns, and can be anaesthetised.

Compared to female "circumcision" (which really needs a different name), which is motivated by religion, control and oppression. It's performed on children (age 5-10 IIRC) without anaesthetic, and involves the removal of most of the external genitalia. In case you missed it, that's without anaesthetic.

As I said before, I'm very much anti- genital mutilation for whatever reason, and believe that both are forms of child abuse. But drawing parallels, any parallels, between male and female circumcision is ludicrous. They have absolutely nothing in common beyond "non-consensual, unnecessary surgery in the genital area."

Can you save me Tom - of course please think of the children first

Except I haven't advocated saving them have I? I wouldn't ban them but at the same time I think there is a culture of silence among the left (and don't get me wrong, I'm mostly left wing) when it comes to criticizing anything remotely connected to Islam. I used trollish sarcasm to highlight the absurdity of that.

Judging by my experience of this forum, I get the feeling that I would have been labelled a closet racist if I'd posted a topic questioning Islamic values such as the burqa etc.

How is outwardly showing your religion provocative? Perhaps they think your lack of religious symbols is a provocative sign of your atheism - is it ? or is it just how you dress?

Purely for the lolz...and I do mean purely for the hypothetical lolz, given that it can be an offence under the 1986 public order act to display symbols such as the swastika outside a school full of Jews then I can also see wearing a Burqa to a convention full of feminists being an offence. The difference is I'm not sure who the law with side in the latter situation though.

Special treatment.

As you would not ban it, though you dont really like it, I assume all the colourful trolling insults apply equally to yourself.
Well your right we did indeed have some fun that last one is just brilliant ...oh my sides

I am sure you could request the same if you so wished so I would say it is sensitivity rather than special. Anyone could ask for it not just the religious.

Firstly, I resent the quite frankly sexist idea that I as a man somehow like pissing next to other men and that women would not like pissing next to each other. I would like more separated male urinals so I don't get drunk ****s pissing on me.

Secondly in court, I'm sure just about every judge in the land would tell me to **** off if I said "Can I have this....because I'm an atheist".

Why not try it when refusing to swear on the bible or an other religious book because you are an atheist.
Let me know what happens and how long your sentence was

I'd happily swear on the bible, but first I'd open it and read the lines about swearing oaths and falling to condemnation, and some other lines of wisdom about testimony and oaths.

Are you not proving my point further jy, religion is given a disgusting level of significance in this country and your attitude helps to feed it.

"Why not try it when refusing to swear on the bible or an other religious book because you are an atheist.
Let me know what happens and how long your sentence was " loads of people decline to swear on a religious book not only defendants but witnesses and jury members. They just afirm instead it's perfectly acceptable in court.

Are you not proving my point further jy

I pointed out earlier that our judicial system is based on Christian values. Then you mentioned swearing on the Bible, Junkyard. [url= http://www.truthmagazine.com/oaths ]Have a read and consider how our whole system of statements by sworn in witnesses is based on biblical teaching.[/url]

I am often stunned that Muslim women in the west would want to wear a face covering.

It is no coincidence that the countries where facial covering is required are the same countries that womens rights are stamped on in so many other ways, yet immigrants who have the freedom to wear clothing that doesn't socially isolate them continue to do so in solidarity with the oppressive misogynistic regimes around the world.

well as we are a [decreasingly] religious society so you could argue everything we have ever done was religious in nature if you wished to. Some things will have more than others for sure.

I think an atheist legal system would still require an oath to be sworn saying you were being honest.
It seems entirely a sensible thing to ask someone to do prior to speaking in court.
Folk used to swear an oath to a king or Caesar or whatever.
IMHO religion likes to claim lots of things as its - great art, music, oaths, morals etc but it is often not the case that without religion we would not have these things.

Good link edukator [ not sarcasm]

immigrants who have the freedom to wear clothing that doesn't socially isolate them continue to do so in solidarity with the oppressive misogynistic regimes around the world.

I enjoyed reading the Lewis and Clark book about the crossing of the American continent, in part because of the insight into Amerindian culture and morals. Without the transmission of the teachings of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Co. and enforcement by organised religion a very different moral code had developed. As an ageing man their system has some appeal, I quite fancy younger warriors lending me their wives. 8)

Have you considered that they do it for another reason like say choice and desire to respect their [ interpretation] of islamic values?

Yes, and having witnessed the treatment of the woman by her (assumed) husband in the supermarket and car park thought it was more likely his desire and choice.

Have you considered that they do it for another reason like say choice and desire to respect their [ interpretation] of islamic values?

I am sure that they do it out of choice, in much the same way as young kids love to get their genitals mutilated out of devotion to their religion.

So, after 4 pages have any Muslim folk chipped in to defeat this xenophobic nonsense?

Nooo they're sat back laughing at the useful do-gooders trying to do it for them, bless em.

So an adult woman choosing to wear the veil is just like a child having genital mutilation 😕
re read the last few pages we covered this side bar

So an adult woman choosing to wear the veil is just like a child having genital mutilation

In many ways, yes. Veil wearing doesn't start when a girl is an adult, it starts when they first menstruate. Similarly, circumcision happens roughly at the time of the onset of puberty for a Jewish boy. Both are conventions imposed on the child before they have the capacity to decide if they want to do it.

Both are considered rites of passage that one must undergo on the path to maturity. Both are done because of a community and religious compunction to do so. They both have a long term effect on the life of the child.

In fact, the only real difference that I can see, aside from the small matter of a bit of butchery is that a woman makes a choice to wear a veil every day.

It seems entirely a sensible thing to ask someone to do prior to speaking in court.

Why? what value does it have. As an Atheist why would I believe that somebody swearing an oath on a bible would be more likely to tell the truth. Are they more likely to tell the truth from that moment on but may have been lying up until that point? What type of Christian would rely on that oath to begin telling the truth and when does that commitment expire? 10 mins? 1hr? 3 days? and then do they revert back to their lying self??

Comedy Gold! 🙂

[i] when does that expire? 10 mins? 1hr? 3 days?[/i]

I thought there was some sort geographical caveat in there?

"I promise on my holy book to tell the truth in answer to direct questions whilst within 3ft of the witness box, after that I shall revert to my previous habit of lying through my teeth whenever it suits me"

[edit] damn. I only popped into this thread to see if the arguing was getting any more entertaining and you sucked me into posting.

yet immigrants who have the freedom to wear clothing that doesn't socially isolate them continue to do so in solidarity with the oppressive misogynistic regimes around the world.

And misguided and cowardly liberals instead of addressing the real issue of the oppression of womens rights go for the low lying fruit!

As an Atheist why would I believe that somebody swearing an oath on a bible would be more likely to tell the truth.

If you accept that they take their "Christian values" seriously then it's a fair assumption. A better question would be, why would we believe you as an atheist swearing on a bible?

Fortunately, there are now secular alternatives in court. Cross my heart and hope to die, or something.

why would we believe you as an atheist swearing on a bible?

Exactly. Why would the process change what I would say? hence my point that for believers or non believers the process has no value.

Torminalis - Member

In fact, the only real difference that I can see, aside from the small matter of a bit of butchery is that a woman makes a choice to wear a veil every day.

Well yes, that is the difference, choice or not. Welcome to the cool team.

why would we believe you as an atheist swearing on a bible?

Exactly. Why would the process change what I would say? hence my point that for believers or non believers the process has no value.

Well, as an Atheist, who obviously cares about this subject enough to moan about it, you would have done your homework beforehand and pointed out that you didnt want to swear an oath on the Bible.

And you would instead be asked to make a non religious Affirmation designed exactly for your needs.

Happy ?

In many ways, yes.

Both are conventions imposed on the child before they have the capacity to decide if they want to do it.

As an Atheist why would I believe that somebody swearing an oath on a bible would be more likely to tell the truth

For fear of starting a spat again I suggest you re read what i wrote

I think an atheist legal system would still require an oath to be sworn saying you were being honest.
It seems entirely a sensible thing to ask someone to do prior to speaking in court.
Folk used to swear an oath to a king or Caesar or whatever.

for believers or non believers the process has no value.

so is girls here wearing skirts and boys wearing trousers. I dont think this means I can compare it to FGM.

So, firstly you only address one of several of the similarities that I describe and then you use female genital mutilation where my example was relating to circumcision. I am not feeling very successfully shot down.

I think that the social expectation of women to wear veils is probably far more damaging to individuals and society than male circumcision so in many ways it is worse.

From the Koran:

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! Turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss

Now, correct me if I am wrong but this does not mention facial covering, it looks more like an appeal not to wear low cut tops and to be modest with their 'ornaments' if you read it. It is not prescriptive, rather subject to interpretation.

So why, in our permissive society do women still wear the veil? Because they are encouraged to do so by the communities and families they live in, not for any informed religious adherence. Are Muslim women who do not wear the veil somehow lesser muslims?

I completely agree that every person should have a choice and nothing should be banned, but I do reckon that the veil is symptomatic of a broader level of suppression of women's freedoms. As I said in my first post, it is no conincidence that the countries where the veil is required are also those that have the worst treatment of women. It seems intrinsically linked to the denial of education to females, the denial of their right to drive, to freedom of expression and of their equality generally.

It is a pretty shabby state of affairs really and meanwhile hand wringing westerners whitter about womens right to be oppressed if they choose.

It is a cultural tool for the oppression of women and we should do everything we can to encourage women to throw off the symbols and tools that repress them.

then you use female genital mutilation where my example was relating to circumcision.

So an adult woman choosing to wear the veil is just like a child having genital mutilation
In many ways, yes.

I think this will explain my confusion

Torminalis - Member
It is a pretty shabby state of affairs really and meanwhile hand wringing westerners whitter about womens right to be oppressed if they choose.

It is a cultural tool for the oppression of women and we should do everything we can to encourage women to throw off the symbols and tools that repress them.

When a woman says she wears the veil as she sees it as a 'virtuous choice' is she lying?

I do reckon that the veil is symptomatic of a broader level of suppression of women's freedoms.

I would tend to agree, but.....

1) I really know next to bugger all about it, so don't really feel that qualified to start lecturing people with a deeply held conviction
2) Telling people their culture is stupid and backward isn't generally the way to win them over to your point of view

It is a cultural tool for the oppression of women and we should do everything we can to encourage women to throw off the symbols and tools that repress them.

Ok, so what are you suggesting exactly?

I think that the social expectation of women to wear veils is probably far more damaging to individuals and society than male circumcision so in many ways it is worse.

Except that one is irreversible and done without consent, to children.

I think this will explain my confusion

Well, to be perfectly clear, I see both male and female circumcision to be pretty troubling things. I used male circumcision because for some perverse reason it doesn't share the same stigma that female circumcision does and was better for my argument.

I sense I am not going to come out of this well if I keep on digging. I think veils and circumcision and oppression are all pretty bad things and concede that they have different levels of impact on lives. I do believe though that they share many similarities, obviously aside from the final nature of circumcision.

I have worked very closely with 4 ****stani guys for the last 5 years and they all feel kind of the same as I do. They are all Muslims and none of their wives wear veils.

I think three issues are being discussed here
1. Circumcision - my view its bad for both genders and far worse for females and should be made illegal - as indeed it is for females- males would be more controversial as the damage is more debatable
2. Is Islam oppressive to women - in general yes but I would also say most religions are as well as being wrong.
3. should we ban the veil - no

Yes some women are forced to wear it like school girls are forced to wear skirts. the majority of those who choose to do so are generally fine with this choice and make a "free" choice. It may just mean they are socially conditioned or brain washed to do this [ in both cultures].

If banning its use or encouraging its non use would liberate women everywhere then I would support it but i dont think it would.
You just change the victims of oppression with a ban IMHO from those forced to wear it to those who can no longer choose to wear it.
I am not sure a male non muslim encouraging them to not do what the Quran says* will be all that persuasive anymore than I would listen to a muslim telling me how to act/behave etc

Do i like it , not particularly but plenty of folks wear clothes I dont like.

* yes there is debate as to exactly what should be worn
NB i mean in this country more than I mean repressive Islamic regimes

I sense I am not going to come out of this well if I keep on digging

For fear of starting a spat again I suggest you re read what i wrote

I think an atheist legal system would still require an oath to be sworn saying you were being honest.
It seems entirely a sensible thing to ask someone to do prior to speaking in court.
Folk used to swear an oath to a king or Caesar or whatever.

I am not suggesting an atheist swears on a Bible and , if you read it all, it seems odd to suggest I am

I never suggested you were, why do you claim people misread/misquote you when they havent then misread/misquote them.

I claimed that swearing on anything for anybody has no value, it is is simply a tradition.

Its probably fair to say it does not really matter whether someone does or does not swear an oath as we can be certain that not all of them are telling the truth

This is my point exactly however you have changed your view which is good news. 😀

1) I really know next to bugger all about it, so don't really feel that qualified to start lecturing people with a deeply held conviction

But (and this is an extreme view to make my point) do we need to understand a persons culture to interpret that their physical abuse of their child is wrong?
We dont need to analyse their background, understand their cultural heritage then reflect on all the terrible things we have done in the past which may have impacted on their actions.
These things may be useful as a tool but we shouldnt allow people to simply externalise blame. That is just liberal hand wringing of the most cowardly kind. In the above example "most right minded people" (correct in this context?) would agree that physical abuse towards children is wrong.
If they did it through some "deeply held conviction" would that mean we have an excuse not to act?

1. Circumcision - my view its bad for both genders and far worse for females and should be made illegal - as indeed it is for females- males would be more controversial as the damage is more debatable
2. Is Islam oppressive to women - in general yes but I would also say most religions are as well as being wrong.
3. should we ban the veil - no

+1

But (and this is an extreme view to make my point) do we need to understand a persons culture to interpret that their physical abuse of their child is wrong?

Are we talking about circumcision again? 😉

No-one is arguing about whether child abuse is wrong and should be condemned, but there could be a discussion about what exactly constitutes child abuse. I might argue that indoctrinating children into a religion is a form of child abuse - but I'd expect many people to angrily disagree with me.

The debate isn't about whether oppressing women is wrong, it's about whether the veil is oppressing women.

I'm inclined to think it is, but I can't say for sure. And as JY says non-Muslims lecturing Muslims about freedom (while we line up to bomb yet another Muslim country) probably won't go down too well and is likely to be counter-productive. Banning faith schools might help though.

I think this debate could do without all the straw-man insults over 'cowardly liberal hand-wringing' etc.

Are we talking about circumcision again?

No, my mistake. I meant for example extreme physical abuse not FGM.

The debate isn't about whether oppressing women is wrong, it's about whether the veil is oppressing women.

But it does come down to "knowing what is best" for people. We do it all the time BTW. I made an earlier point that because you can find people who may claim that forced marriage/FGM has been the best thing that ever happened to them (certainly with the latter) I suspect that most people would agree that this is a terrible practice and those that commit it upon their children should be punished. We dont need to analyse their culture to come to that conclusion.
I do think it is a sign of oppresion but it is less overtly obvious to the observer.
In terms of telling people not to wear it or providing a practical solution to what I dont like to see, then it does become more difficult.

Only if you consider giving evidence that refutes it to be supporting it.

Again, it kind of supports my viewpoint. There shouldn't be special oaths for different religious viewpoints full stop, it only serves to highlight differences between groups. Differences that people are killing each other over in the Islamic world.

Here's an idea anyway - lets try framing a Burqa ban within Isaiah Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty" (eg Positive and Negative Liberty) and also "Rousseau's Theory of Freedom".

There shouldn't be special oaths for different religious viewpoints full stop, it only serves to highlight differences between groups.

Hmmm, seems like you don't have the guts to condemn what is the real problem, the oppression of women, and are instead hand-wringing over inconsequential matters like the finer details of swearing oaths in court.

WHAT ABOUT THE OPPRESSION OF WOMEN IN SAUDI ARABIA? HMMMMMM? 😉

Hmmm, seems like you don't have the guts to condemn what is the real problem, the oppression of women, and are instead hand-wringing over inconsequential matters like the finer details of swearing oaths in court.

Except giving special consideration to religious or non-religious viewpoints is at the heart of the problem we are talking about (eg special treatment beiing given to peoples personal beliefs)... in this country the wearing of a Burqua or any religious symbol should not take precedent over law or company policy.

It seems this judge would agree with me. http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/aug/23/judge-refuses-muslim-to-wear-burqa-court

But the judge said: "It seems to me to be quite fundamental that the court is sure who it is dealing with. Furthermore, this court, as long as I am sitting, has the highest respect for any religious tradition a person has.

"In my courtroom also, this sometimes conflicts with the interests of a paramount need for the administration of justice. In my courtroom, that's going to come first.

"There is the principle of open justice and it can't be subject to the religion of the defendant whether the principle is observed or not.

"I am not saying this because of the particular form of dress by this defendant, I apply that to any form of dress that had the same issues."

Claire Burtwistle, the woman's barrister, told the court the woman was not prepared to lower her veil at all while men were in the room. The woman cannot be named for legal reasons.

"In front of women, it is not an issue. It is simply men that she will not allow to see her face," the barrister said.

Burtwistle suggested that she, a female police officer or a female prison guard could identify the defendant and confirm to the court that it was the same person as in the police arrest photos.

Sarah Counsell, prosecuting, said the police officer in charge of the case was content that he recognised the defendant while she was in the burqa.

Judge making it a problem when both the prosecutor, police and defense are happy with the identification of the defendant/suggested ways identification could be made. What a waste of time and money.