People who are capable of abuse are capable of it with or without religion. Blaming religion won't fix the issue. It's not about fear, it's about knowing that blaming a religion won't do **** to actually solve the issue of abuse. Islam could disappear from the world overnight and people who would have engaged in domestic abuse would still do so because it's less about religion and more of a personality flaw that abusers all share.

Again, you are assuming your interpretation of headscarves is the only interpretation of it. There would be plenty of independent Muslim women who would defend their right to wear their religious dress because they believe differently and their beliefs can from an informed place. This is something that's been proven by the women-led protests against banning Muslim headwear in the past.

Are they all simpletons that have been led astray and are incapable of thinking for themselves? Of course they aren't, it's not very feminist to denounce an entire group of women for fighting for their rights to wear what they please.

I have made it clear in previous posts that I have no issues with 'headscarves'. My issues, like many, are with full face and body coverings - niqabs and burkhas. However I don't feel that any male politician should be suggesting all Western women should wear headscarves out of solidarity for a single religion - a religion whose values many do not agree with. As a non-religious woman I don't feel any solidarity with women who choose to wear headscarves for religious reasons. Why would any non-Muslim woman want to endorse such beliefs. Personally to do so would be against my own belief that religion is simply superstition. I feel his motivations are simply based on his own PC opinions.

I know such control is about personality flaws in men - the point I am making is that religion is being used by these men to 'justify' their behaviours. We know from experience that male security guards, for instance , have been reluctant to Stop and search Muslim women wearing niqabs and burkhas because of 'relgious' implications. Muslim men know the West are fearful of causing 'offence' by doing so with the obvious security implications of that.

Security being just one issue.

The politician can suggest what he wants, he's not actually demanding anything of anyone, people are free to ignore what he has to say. As he said in the article that you neglected to post in full, he's all for freedom of expression and that includes the right to express things that you disagree with. You've just taken the snippet of what he said out of context so you have a reason to shake your fist and go 'Grrr Muslims! Grrr Political Correctness!'

Abusers will always look for excuses for their actions, blaming the excuse doesn't stop the abuse from happening.

Your point about security guards sounds very much like those 'share if you agree' posts on facebook that are often bull**** meant to rile up people looking for an excuse to be angry. If there is a security concern then any good security official will act regardless of a burkha or not, the law is on their side when it comes to anyone that might cry foul for Security guards following procedure.

I think every woman has a reason to shake her fist at such blatant discrimination of women on British streets in 2017. The message is obvious even if some choose to ignore it.

This simply isn't true. If a woman in a veil tries to come into this country or any European country, she is asked to remove her veil at immigration control. If she feels uncomfortable, she can remove her veil in private or just show her face to a female immigration officer. There are no exceptions... none. She is just as likely to be searched by an immigration officer as anyone else. There are always plenty of female IO's around because even Western women often object to being searched by men.

This simply isn't true. If a woman in a veil tries to come into this country or any European country, she is asked to remove her veil at immigration control. If she feels uncomfortable, she can remove her veil in private or just show her face to a female immigration officer. There are no exceptions... none. She is just as likely to be searched by an immigration officer as anyone else. There are always plenty of female IO's around because even Western women often object to being searched by men.

Edited to add: the security issue with Muslim women is no different to anyone else who wants to step over the threshold into the UK.

What you said is correct but I wasn't thinking so much about airports as more everyday situations such as going into banks, schools or really any public area with criminal intentions.

There have been cases of men wearing burkhas and posing as women to commit crimes. It would also make it easier for men or women to commit terrorist acts if less likely to be challenged.

Have you ever been stopped and searched by your bank?
Have you ever seen anyone in a bank being stopped and searched?
If a woman wearing niqab was suspected of shop lifting she would have to wait with the security men for the police to arrive.

niqab crimes are so low they are hardly worth a mention. The latest one was a British white guy from Watford in 2015. He could just as easily of donned a biker full face helmet.

I think you miss the point. Full face helmets are not allowed in banks and no doubt other public places. The same should apply to burkhas - anyone could be under that contraption.

Very true. People often say wearing such paraphernalia is the woman's choice except in reality it isn't really her choice, she does what she is conditioned to do by men. It is disturbing how so many non Muslims collude with that.

Why would any woman think her face is immodest?

Why would it only frighten western babies, do all other babies instinctively know know not to be scared?

I also have the freedom to wear what I want. Didn't stop a Muslim spitting at me on the Tube because I was wearing a tiny Star of David on a chain. But I'm not expecting everyone to wear a Star of David in solidarity.

Really sorry to hear you had that nasty experience Liv.

But the compassionate lot would if it was a planned event and was a regular occurrence. Almost wonder if it would have happened at all if these solidarity events were more regular, but some people, evidently, are just opposed to any form of compassion, empathy and understanding of anybody outside of their bubble... Maybe that Austrian bloke is on to something..

He was wrong in the same way as those who harass women in headscarves then.

You wear one then.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39784721

Interesting article. "Young men as conservative as their fathers." "The majority of men, up to 90% in some places expected to control their wives' freedoms, from clothing to how often the couple had sex." "70% of women wanted to work but felt men should have the priority where work is scarce." "Yet if father's had more liberal attitudes their younger son's were more likely to as well." It's about patriarchal religious conditioning.

A very high figure for the 21st century. And so the cycle continues. An interesting article which demonstrates how things don't change because men don't want to.

These men don't want to change - they like having it all their way - It's no more complicated that that in my opinion.

They shout loudly about white mans' racism whilst at the same time practicing the worst kind of sexism - big fat hypocrites who don't care - they just want everything their way.

I could never respect such 'values' that only exist to suit men.

Then some soft touch Austrian politician has a bright spark of an idea - let's not expect such people who choose to come to our countries to integrate with us - let us integrate with them. Wow.

Who knows maybe he isn't such a soft touch - just a sexist pig sympathiser.

:hee:

Is there a law that says men can't do so? Put your money where your mouth is if you really believe in such 'solidarity'.

I'm not being funny, I think it's a great idea. I remember once when there was a planned event for people to wear purple in solidarity with all the gay suicides that happened that year (can't remember which year, but it was a devastating new high, 2010ish I think). And everywhere you went that day, there were people in purple, it was kind of beautiful. Wouldn't really have the same effect if it was one guy wearing purple.. it would need to be a planned event.. and no, no law that suggests it should only be women.. from personal experience, I've seen plenty of Muslim men in Tunisia, Saudi, and Iraq wear headscarves

Men in Iran also wore headscarves in a planned event to show solidarity with their wives, which is also kinda beautiful in my opinion
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...-a7160146.html

Not he... she. In a headscarf.

There's plenty of evidence of men wearing women's dress when they need to escape somewhere. I can think of at least three instances of that. Shhhh though... don't want to be offensive. Especially to women in a religion that are already oppressed by their own men.

I'm kind of on the fence with this one, I've read most of the posts in here and I agree with some of both sides tbh. Whilst I wouldn't like to dictate to anyone what they should or shouldn't wear, I do also agree that alot of this religious attire (mainly the ones that cover the face etc) are oppressive to women and so for that reason i probably wouldn't wear a head scarf or whatever as protest to something I actually think is draconian. I mean I'm not going to try and force people not to wear them either but I'm not going to support something I think is outdated, i wouldn't protest for any religious stuff really because I think the world would be a better place without religions

Well anyone who exhibits prejudice then, whether it was a he or a she of whichever faith.