Everyday really! :joker: I rarely post - and this forum clearly needs more posters! :sleep:

Yes everyday, sitting browsing....but wait you dont want to be known as a forum regular so you delete your posts......the mind boggles.

I am tired of arguing the point that muslims have no right to flout our laws with regard to their treatment of women. Just because a practise is a cultural norm in the countries they come from does not mean we have to accept it over here. Sex discrimination in this country is an offence, and muslims are not above our laws.

"All it takes for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing". By suggesting we just allow them to get on with it, you are saying we must accept abhorrent practices in our society because it is "their culture". Well I beg to differ - probably as a woman I am always going to feel much more strongly about this issue than a man - but I refuse to accept that we have to kow tow and tolerate sex discrimination in our midst, and what's more allow faith schools to perpetuate the myth that women are inferior to men, by allowing them to indoctrinate and brainwash their female pupils. You would think after several centuries muslims would have progressed to some level of equality between the sexes.

Banning the burkha will be the first step towards the emancipation of these women who are treated as second class citizens by their male counterparts. Who said anything about "suddenly"? - no pain, no gain is the mantra - it might take decades to change muslim attitudes towards women but if they choose to live in the west amongst emancipated western women then they should not be allowed to continue flouting the law by their domination of women.

Your casual comment that there are some women who wear the burkha willingly is flawed, since a brainwashed person's compliance should not be confused with willingness, but rather a reluctance to be punished by their men folk for non-compliance. I would also point out what any casual obsever can see for themselves, that the burkha is not universally worn by muslim women. Most enlightened muslims do not require their women to wear the burkha and respected muslim scholars have acknowledged it is not a requirement mentioned in the Qu'ran. It is simply a legacy of some men's interpretation of "dressing modestly" that they have used to their advantage, about 500 years ago. It is sad that in 500 years there has been virtually no progress with regard to women's rights. I therefore take issue with your comment that "the larger section of Islamic society has it as a traditional cultural requirement". This is NOT true.

The issue of the subjugation of women aside (which in itself is unacceptable in this country), it is a garment that anonymises and conceals its wearers who should not be allowed to flout the requirement these days to be identifiable and accountable, particularly in public areas. The sooner it is banned the better.

Oh you are a know-it-all aren't you! You presume to know the reason why I delete my posts - like many on here you are quick to make assumptions based on nothing more than your own pre-conceptions! You know nothing!

I AM a regular on another forum - and whilst on there - I sometimes dip in here for a nose, nothing more! Ok with you! :sleep:

PS your customer service skills stink!

I agree the veil is nothing more than a product of Wahhabism and the more radical section of Islam, which I would be lying of I said I didn't hate and didn't want to see challenged. But freedom to worship is freedom to worship, we can't make exceptions.

I think a better and more radical solution would be to get as many Islamic and non-Islamic/secular children as possible to mix with eachother and harsh measures against segregation in schools. It doesn't totally account for children in Islamic faith schools, but there are still plenty of state school children from conservative Islamic families in areas like Bethnal Green, Bradford, etc who will never get the opportunity to aquaint themselves with people of a more modern, enlightened mindset, and likewise, many other children from secular families who will suffer from lack of exposure to other religions and communities.

There are untold benefits from getting different communities and cultures to interact more with eachother. A great example being the achievements of the US Supreme Court under the the leadership of Earl Warren which is largely responsible for the melting pot America is today. With this in mind, perhaps it is time that state-funded faith schools ("Islamic schools" and "Christian schools" sounding unpleasantlly reminiscent of "black schools" and "white schools") were laid to rest once and for all.

I think the paragraphs below from the Muslim view in Canada say it all!

Misuse of religion for political ends

We believe that the facemask worn by some Muslim women [is about] political symbolism that reflects the contempt of radical Islamist groups for Western civilisation. Today, the only forces that demand Muslim women to cover their faces are: the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Arab World [and Europe], Al-Qaeda, and the Saudi religious establishment. All four groups see women as a source of sin and objects of sexuality, and Canada and the freedom of women in Canada and the West as manifestations of evil sexual depravity. Yet it is worth noting that leading clerics and scholars from both the Shia and Sunni communities have stated quite explicitly that the burka or niqab are not an Islamic requirement, but a cultural and tribal custom.

The MCC believes therefore that the wearing of a facemask is not a religious issue and the argument that it has the protection of the Charter, as ‘freedom of religion’, does not withstand scrutiny. A political symbol does not have the status of religious belief, especially if its meaning is rejection of and contempt for western civilization, and for the women who exercise their hard fought right to not be judged as mere sexual objects and the source of sin. Pressure on young girls to conform to the belief that they are sources of sin was demonstrated in Montreal in 2006 when the head of a mosque told young girls that if they did not cover themselves, they risked getting raped and might end up as unwed mothers. He went on to say that on the Day of Judgment, God would punish these girls for getting raped because they enticed the rapist by not covering themselves.

As a nation, a country and a society, [Canada has] travelled over 200 years to ensure that women are not considered second-class citizens or the possessions of men. We can ill afford to let culture or tribal custom compromise the equality of women.

I agree with everything you say, but then my debate on here has not been about inhibiting anyone's freedom to worship who or what the hell they like. I also agree that faith schools of any religion or denomination are an anachronism in this day and age, because it is usually about exclusivity rather than inclusivity.

My main problem is with cultures that promote women as inferior beings and treat them accordingly - such cultures have no business practising sex discrimination with impugnity when the rest of us abide by the laws of this country. The West has moved on in 500 years and recognises that all are equal (including WOMEN) - it seems Islam is a few centuries behind. There is absolutely no argument for compromise on our part if it means a section of society is allowed to act illegally. The argument has sod all to do with religion or culture, but about the demands of one section of society to have the right to act outside the law. How about our right to expect every citizen of this country to be equally accountable under the law and equally entitled to respect and consideration, or is it the case that when it comes to women's rights, they are not seen as worthy of preservation?

The voice of commonsense, sadly lacking in this country - it is absolutely nonsensical that such medieval attitudes are tolerated in our society. If people come to settle in this country they MUST obey our laws, and the rights of western women should not be over-ridden to satisfy the misguided politically correct brigade. I note that not one single female FM has spoken up in favour of the burkha, only men who can afford to be oh so tolerant since it doesn't really bother them, does it?

Wombai, if it quacks like a duck and acts like a duck then it's a duck. You're regurlarly on here and you regurlarly post. You're a regular member.

NettoSuperstar is female I believe. Not everyone is into misandry as much as you..

No I know because you dont want to go over 10K which is just plain stupid nevermind immature.

I don't see why you dont just give it up you're a regular here and everyone knows it.

Also if you have a problem with the way I have ever handled anything you should report the post or get in contact with us.

(By the by your attitude could do with a facelift no need to argue with everyone about everything)

Yes
NettoAsdaWalmart is a lady.