Quote:
Originally Posted by angus58
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.
|
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.