Nuns habits next on the list?

Sorry but I think that's patronising as hell, not all muslims are like what you read in the newspapers or watch on the TV and it annoys me when people think that. It's a stereotype based on the minority rather then a majority.

Again it's patronising to assume that all muslim women are downtrodden and meek, It reminds me of a friend I had in college that wore a version of the Burkha at times It wasn't quite the letterbox version but it was close and she chewed my ear off once for even suggesting that she was victimised into wearing it.

I'm not denying it doesn't happen though but to ban it is a blanket solution to a specific problem and in the long run it won't help the victims as they'll still be abused, they'll just have more freeing clothes to suffer in. Banning a big piece of fabric won't do achieve anything if you want to stop the violence. You've got to tackle the problem at it's core and individually.

But Jews still emphasise modesty among females, a lot of married Jewish women will cover their hair

yes

except for stripograms

I see the Burka as a symbol of oppression, and to be quite honest I applaud Germany and France for banning it. It's backward and demeaning to women, If they don't like it then don't go to those countries.

Yes the New Way.

In Your Face.

And Andy (novo) is having a week off.

are you seriously trying to compare a small round cap attached to the crown to a full head/face/body cover up?

they have totally different significance. And certainly send out totally different messages.

What about a British Muslim woman who feels the burkha is an important part of her religion, why should she be denied the freedom to do so because some people are hung-up on the possible symbolism of it?

It's not always been the case that it has symbolised oppression either, back in the 19th centure it became a way of rejecting and resisting British colonialism, and asserting themselves and their religion

You do realise that's straight out of the Book of Fundamentalist Justifications, don't you?
An dangerous and highly inaccurate argument - in my opinion.
We should be more respectful of rights and equality than of beliefs.

In a sense they are similar. Neither are religious requirements but some consider them to be important to their religion. The kippah may also be a way of protecting modesty, the burkha is intended to do the same although admittedly takes it to a much greater extent.

Should be banned anyway, everywhere, for security reasons.

Or banned when ENTERING somewhere with cctv. Like balaclavas and motorbike helmets are.

But we cant say 'oh I/the camera needs to see your face' now can we :rolleyes:

Yes that could happen after any major attack in the UK.

I assume nothing of the sort. I KNOW they're physically weaker, and I SUSPECT they are neither downtrodden, nor meek, but frightened. They have no rights to their children or an income.

Well, If a British person lives in a Muslim country they have to live by their rules without question so I say tough luck to her tbh, if it's that important to her then she could always move to a Muslim country.

Well I am sorry but I am glad some Countries are banning it now,in these days of terrorism etc, I think 'all' citizens and people and children everywhere should be able to see very clearly who they are with in buildings, shops/stores and sharing the streets and all public places with.
With no exceptions whatsoever.

exactly

westerners have to adjust what they wear to suit muslim countries. But they can wear what they want even if it demeans an entire gender and influences our children in a backwards and negative way?

young girls in this country deserve better role models than a woman covered up head to toe. That represents oppresion and stone age mentality.

I like the fact that we're more tolerant than most Islamic countries though, and that we dont impose our own beliefs onto every single citizen of our country

well, besides the fact the I believe it's oppressive towards women, as others have pointed out, from a security point of view as well it makes sense.

I don't even need to point out how wrong this post is. Your whole argument is just a bunch of assumptions based on a minority of Muslims.

Yeah, I agree ..... the burka is an anachronistic, repressive and potentially lethal form of female clothing ..... ban it and burn it ..... :mad:

The same minority who FORCE their women to cover up; which is the minority we are discussing, no?

Approving of oppression is not tolerance.

The point is that this is a western country and as a woman it offends ME to have to daily encounter this vile visual symbol of female subjugation, and I know for a fact that I am not alone in feeling that way. My rights to NOT be offended should be taken into consideration as much as the rights of the women who supposedly "choose" to wear the burka. I am highly sceptical as to the fact that ALL women who wear the burka do so out of choice - I suspect it is often coercion by their male relatives.

Unfortunately its not the whole of Germany, only the state of Hesse.


Wonder if they will also fine brides wearing veils on the way to get married.

Don't be silly:nono:

Oh you mean its okay for christian, jewish hindi etc women to wear veils for traditional, religious and cultural reasons but not for muslim women to do the same?

The state of Hessel is runned by Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats.

Yeah so I read, should be quite amusing if a muslim runs with this to the ECHR on "religious" grounds and challenges the bans on it, especially if the court backed the right to wear and declared the ban illegal.

At least nuns have the excuse of their habits, (which incidentally do NOT cover their faces) actually being a religious requirement UNLIKE the burka which is simply a MALE requirement to subjugate females and enforce OWNERSHIP of and AUTHORITY over their women. Unfortunately that sort of mindset is a couple of centuries out of date and has no place in this country. Let's just bring back chastity belts as well shall we?:rolleyes: And how about chaperones for unmarried women, compulsory male guarantors if women want to take out credit or buy a house etc etc?

Women have had to fight long and hard for equality and the burka represents a massive backward step. The main objection is not the fact it is a head to toe coverup, it is the fact that the FACE is concealed. This is not only a huge security risk but also promotes separation from the rest of the community and hinders integration.

Irrespective of cultural/religious arguments, There is NEVER any reason at all to allow people to move amongst us with total anonymity in this day and age of heightened terror alerts. No doubt if people chose to walk about stark naked or copulate in public we'd have the usual suspects telling us it's their choice and we have no right to object.

Now you're being deliberately disingenuous - of course veils are worn at such ceremonies, but they are NOT worn 24/7 as you well know. To walk around in Britain today totally unidentifiable is unacceptable, and unfortunately the muslim community are doing themselves no favours when they insist on us respecting their culture and then don't have the decency and consideration to respect ours. I am particularly outraged at the two muslim councillors, ironically from the Respect Party, who refused to honour Matt Croucher who won the George Cross. Such bloody hypocrisy.

You forgot they contribute to a predisposition for hypovitaminosis D, which can lead to rickets or osteoporosis and may increase the risk of seizures in infants born to affected mothers

No danger of that happening seeing as how the wearing of the Burka is NOT a religious requirement - and I defy anyone on this forum to find such a dictat in the Qu'ran.

Fully agree with the mutual respect part of your post, however the burqa isnt worn 24/7 either, its only worn when the female is in a location when males other than her husband/family may see her.

Also the requirement is removed if she is on pilgrimage. (Ihram)

The point I was making unless the ban is enforced reference bridal veils etc, it could be seen by the buffoons of ECHR as being discriminatory on religious/cultural grounds

Well that says it all, really, doesn't it?

Its a question of interpretation,

A fatwa, written by Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid on his Saudi Arabian website Islam QA, states:

The correct view as indicated by the evidence is that the woman’s face is ‘awrah which must be covered. It is the most tempting part of her body, because what people look at most is the face, so the face is the greatest ‘awrah of a woman

Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid is a quite well respected Islamic jurist albeit not very moderate in his beliefs.

I honestly believe that the prophets people worship would be horrified by the justifications made in their name. Literal interpretations of the moral meanderings of holy men thousands of years ago are unacceptable and illogical. Reading anything while ignoring its historical context and trying to directly apply its teaching to a completely different time just makes no sense whatsoever - and this applies to the literal interpretation of the Christian bible too.

Very true, however there are other Muslim scholars and jurists who make similar sort of interpretations, there always will be I suppose. And as you say it does happen in other religions too.

And there will always be people who follow them.

Government has no business dictating what people can wear and what they cannot. Now, if you're setting a law on the basis that covering the face makes things like robbery easy to accomplish in certain institutions, fine. But if you're wearing it on your own time, sorry, but you have every right to do it. Let's also get one thing clear, not all women are wearing it against their own free will. People take their religion very seriously. Should Hasidic Jewish women also be banned from covering their heads with wigs and veils too? Give me a break. Once you start letting the government dictate your personal lifestyle when you aren't bothering anyone else, you're opening the door to all types of horrible things. Europeans seriously have not learned from their own history, and Germans of all people, also haven't learned from theirs either.

Uh, no. The world does not revolve around you.

Find a requirement in the Bible that states that "nuns" should have to cover themselves.