Fenrir wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Fenrir wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Wearing face coverings has nothing to do with religion.

Bullshit*.


*not an endorsement of restrictions, or a repudiation of restrictions.

Bullshit why?

Interactions between people are visual. Or is that too simple to understand.

Why? Seems pretty blindingly bloody obvious to me that the majority of veil wearing Muslim women are not wearing veils purely as avant-garde fashion statements.

They are wearing them because that is the prescribed garb of the culture they are part of, and that culture identifies very strongly as Islamic. Wearing of the veil by Islamic women is a statement, and a statement directly associated with their chosen religion.

So?

Fenrir wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Fenrir wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Wearing face coverings has nothing to do with religion.

Bullshit*.


*not an endorsement of restrictions, or a repudiation of restrictions.

Bullshit why?

Interactions between people are visual. Or is that too simple to understand.

Why? Seems pretty blindingly bloody obvious to me that the majority of veil wearing Muslim women are not wearing veils purely as avant-garde fashion statements.

They are wearing them because that is the prescribed garb of the culture they are part of, and that culture identifies very strongly as Islamic. Wearing of the veil by Islamic women is a statement, and a statement directly associated with their chosen religion.

It's a statement. Correct. It is not a prescribed religious requirement. I also have the right to make the following statement to that person: "Feel free to go and make your statement some place else. If you want to use my service or my facility, you can leave your religious/cultural statement at the door." On reflection, I agree a blanket ban is not appropriate. But neither is a law that says that store owners/public offices or any other place is obliged to accept the face veil on their premises. It would generally be regarded as unacceptable for a masked person to enter a public building. Call it culture if you like. Call it whatever. But no-one should be forced to accept it if they don't wish to.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:But white atheists dudes have decided otherwise so....

You presume.

There are white dudes in this thread announcing Muslim head and face coverings have nothing to do with religion despite the expressions of Muslim women.

That's reality, not a presumption.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:There are white dudes in this thread announcing Muslim head and face coverings have nothing to do with religion despite the expressions of Muslim women.

That's reality, not a presumption.

Therefore show where is it mentioned as being religious?

If you ask a Muslim why Muslim females wears the Hijab (veil) the reason given is usually one of two (or a mixture of both):

They are showing obeying a command from Allah as given in the Quran; it is a matter of piety.
They are protecting their modesty by dressing this way instead of showing their body off for everyone to see.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The real reason that Muslim women wear the hijab today is not a spiritual one, nor a matter of piety. Covering the hair/face cannot be considered an act of modesty because Muslim men are not required to cover theirs. The sole reason they do it is because Umar bin Al-Khattab, a companion of Muhammad, wished that Muhammad would reveal verses from Allah requiring women to wear it. when Muhammad did not oblige, Umar did not bother praying to Allah for assistance. Umar knew he had to make it personal for Muhammad himself in order to bring the revelation down. He followed Muhammad's wives out when they went to go to the toilet and made his presence known. When Muhammad heard of this, the revelation that Umar had so wanted was sent down from Allah. Umar knew where these revelations were really coming from, which is why he pestered Muhammad and bothered his wives instead of asking Allah.

A quote from the link in my sig.

A further link:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Revelation_of_the_Hijab

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:There are white dudes in this thread announcing Muslim head and face coverings have nothing to do with religion despite the expressions of Muslim women.

That's reality, not a presumption.

The topic of head coverings is a separate one. Face coverings are not required by Islam. That's reality. And I'm not a white dude.

Head coverings are not part of the proposed restricted ban either. It is purely about face coverings in situations when people are requesting a service to be provided.

So the woman:

BBC wrote:A case was brought by a 24-year-old French woman, who argued that the ban on wearing the veil in public violated her freedom of religion and expression.

had no case. The European Court For Human Rights could dismiss the case on the grounds some claim here: it has nothing to do with religion, and be done with it.

The court even said:

ECHR wrote:The ban imposed by the Law of 11 October 2010 admittedly had specific negative effects on the situation of Muslim women who, for religious reasons, wished to wear the full-face veil in public.

but no, it is not required by Islam and she is deluded or lying thus cannot wear it or some shit like that?


It does not fucking matter what someone believes is required by Islam and whatnot. This woman S.A.S.

ECHR wrote:The applicant is a French national who was born in 1990 and lives in France. She is a devout Muslim and in her submissions she said that she wore the burqa and niqab in accordance with her religious faith, culture and personal convictions. As she explained, the burqa is a full-body covering including a mesh over the face, and the niqab is a full-face veil leaving an opening only for the eyes. The applicant also emphasised that neither her husband nor any other member of her family put pressure on her to dress in this manner. She added that she wore the niqab in public and in private, but not systematically. She was thus content not to wear the niqab in certain circumstances but wished to be able to wear it when she chose to do so. Lastly, her aim was not to annoy others but to feel at inner peace with herself.

but no. Stockholm Syndrome! Because the court is bunch of morons and I am fucking psychic.

She even challenged other articles:

ECHR wrote:The Court further declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association), taken separately and together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

but no. We don't listen. It needs to be destroyed and since we can find fuck all evidence we will repeat invalid bullshit to keep face or something.

Fenrir wrote:Wearing of the veil by Islamic women is a statement, and a statement directly associated with their chosen religion.

And if they were to 'un-choose' their religion? They would be stoned to death!

Some bloody choice.

Alan B wrote:And if they were to 'un-choose' their religion? They would be stoned to death!

Some bloody choice.

I'd suggest that's unlikely in the Netherlands

I thought the dutch were supposed to be liberal?

Scot Dutchy wrote:Wearing face coverings has nothing to do with religion

In the case of face veils it clearly does have something to do with religion. As for this argument that some muslims don't wear them therefore it's not religious is nonsense.

Some christians take communion, others don't. It doesn't mean communion is not a christian practice.

It never ceases to amaze me how self-described "progressives" go at great lengths to defend the extreme misogyny in islamic culture, in the name of "tolerance".

TheMidnightBarber wrote:I thought the dutch were supposed to be liberal?

Scot Dutchy wrote:Wearing face coverings has nothing to do with religion

In the case of face veils it clearly does have something to do with religion. As for this argument that some muslims don't wear them therefore it's not religious is nonsense.

Some christians take communion, others don't. It doesn't mean communion is not a christian practice.

Face veils may have something to do with religion in that those wearing them believe this to be the case. That does not alter the fact that their religion does not require it. There is not one single verse in the Quran that requires women specifically to cover their faces. On the contrary, it is men who are supposed to lower their gaze when speaking to a woman.

Face veils are an Arab cultural phenomenon, nothing more. The vast majority of muslim women throughout the world do not wear face veils and they are actually PROHIBITED during the annual Hajj pilgrimage (when one would expect them to be absolutely mandatory). They are a cultural imposition, confused with religious requirements, not least by misogynist, backward Saudi male clerics who don't know their own fucking religion and make more shit up to justify their oppression of women. Helped ironically by the hand-wringing appeasement of their medieval bastardry by those who think that Muslim women in that part of the world have the freedoms of choice enjoyed by their sisters in the West and therefore would wear the face veil even if there were no pressure by their male relatives to do so. The majority would not, believe me.

Pulsar wrote:It never ceases to amaze me how self-described "progressives" go at great lengths to defend the extreme misogyny in islamic culture, in the name of "tolerance".

Nobody here is defending misogyny. Just freedom of choice.

However, I'm glad you recognise that telling women what they can and cannot wear is misogyny, though I do wonder if you see the irony.

Blackadder wrote:ace veils may have something to do with religion in that those wearing them believe this to be the case. That does not alter the fact that their religion does not require it. There is not one single verse in the Quran that requires women specifically to cover their faces. On the contrary, it is men who are supposed to lower their gaze when speaking to a woman.

Face veils are an Arab cultural phenomenon, nothing more. The vast majority of muslim women throughout the world do not wear face veils and they are actually PROHIBITED during the annual Hajj pilgrimage (when one would expect them to be absolutely mandatory). They are a cultural imposition, confused with religious requirements, not least by misogynist, backward Saudi male clerics who don't know their own fucking religion and make more shit up to justify their oppression of women. Helped ironically by the hand-wringing appeasement of their medieval bastardry by those who think that Muslim women in that part of the world have the freedoms of choice enjoyed by their sisters in the West and therefore would wear the face veil even if there were no pressure by their male relatives to do so .

Thanks. I know all that and it's not really relevant to my point.

All religious practices are cultural and different people practice the same religion in different ways, so to some muslims the face veil is anathema, to others it is a key part of the practice of their faith. It's not for you to decide what true islam is.

For clarity, I don't like the veil, I just support people's freedom to choose.

Blackadder wrote: The majority would not, believe me.

In the arab world, maybe. I'm not convinced that's the case in the Netherlands.

I think we should force women by law to walk around with their tits out. After all, tit coverings are a construct of puritanical western culture.

Brassieres are a safety risk, you know. Women can hide things in them.

Tried reading this thread but god damn... why in the fuck does it matter if the garments in question are religious or if other garments are included in the ban???

People should be free to wear what the fuck they want in public, obviously as long as it doesn't harm other people (because I know some dipshit on the forums is going to say "OH YOU CAN WEAR A BOMB VEST? or something equally fucking stupid, get a brain pls). Private business should only be able to demand uniforms and not wearing garments which could interfere with their job. Public officials should be able to ask individuals to remove garments covering their face for identification purposes in certain situations (ie entering a country). Any other sort of identification should be done the same way all other identification is done, a cop can't just ask you to take off your shirt to see any tattoos for whatever reason, similarly they shouldn't be able to ask you to remove garment covering your face for whatever reason.

It's so funny how some people will try to cover up the fact that they are happy to 'get' the Arab-fuckheads by eagerly pointing out how everyone else suffers. It's not tricking anyone, we know why laws like this come up and get debated and it's not fucking motorcycle helmets, it's scary Arab's and wanting to control them the same way whites control every other fucking race that lives near them.