General Chat

Janey you've reminded me of a quote from Passport to Pimlico which I was watching over the weekend:

"Don't you come that stuff, Jim Garland! We always were English, and we'll always be Englsh, and it's just because we are English that we're sticking up for our rights to be Burgundians! "

That's why I agree that a ban would be very un British. We've adopted so much from other cultures. I really don't think this would have been such an issue if newspapers hadn't made such a big issue out of it, they've done the same with hoodies, which some people forget mainly consist of children and they aren't all evil. I just find it very odd.

Liz, I think Sikh's put their faith above their safety, it's that important to them. Personally I don't see the issue with it as they're not putting anyone else in danger. they're not doing it because they're flouting the rules or because they can't be bothered, I'm sure they would like to be as safe as possible. Their faith is just more important. Is it really a big issue? They've been riding them without helmets for years without much bother.

Well, since Faisel actually never made any attempt to ban it who knows?

Women in Europe and North America really are in a slightly different situation from women in Saudi Arabia. They aren't prohibited by law from doing all the things they are prohibited from doing in Saudi Arabia, and they are not **required** to wear any religious garb. I'm seeing the difference.

I doubt that Faisel actually planned or even wanted to BAN any of these items of clothing. I suggest that he wanted to eliminate the laws and practices that IMPOSED them on women. I'm seeing the difference, again.

I actually rather suspect that Faisel would have regarded efforts in Europe to ban the wearing of these items of clothing as, gasp, religious intolerance.

When I was in Saudi Arabia, many years ago, when I went out, I had to cover up totally. I didn't wear a burqa, but a hijab (I can't see anything wrong with wearng a scarf!!) with a black yashmak.
Out in the Souq one night with mum & dad, mum & I took our yashmaks off while we had a chat.
All of a sudden there was a big bloke stood in front of us, shouting and pointing a huge handgun at us.
Bit of an overreaction I thought, and dragged mum into a crowd of men (the religious policeman wouldn't shoot them!).
Dad confronted the man, quoting Qu'ran chapter & verse at him. By now, mum & I had our yashmaks back on - and we went on our way.

A week later, we had to visit King Faisel (relating to our Saluki).
I didn't wear a yashmak or Hijab in front of him - as far as he was concerned the burqa was purely to control women - I was young (17)and should be free and able to express myself.

He'd tried to get the habit stopped, but the religious policemen were too powerful - they were of the view that men seeing women's faces, shoulders, ankles etc was sexually provocative and women were 'asking to be raped'.
There was one woman in all of Riyadh who never covered her face, always wore trousers, and drove a car - this was King Faisel's English horse trainer!
Faisel introduced education for all girls - boys had always been educated - but obviously not in self control!!

So, the hajib was something the king of a fundamentlist country wanted rid of. If we in Britain are accused of racism/religious intolerance in wanting it banned - what did that make the late, great Faisel?

http://www.communigate.co.uk/ne/tradition/page45.phtml


No such thing as modest trousers on women

A good question to ask oneself by way of analogy is: "Which outlines the form of the hand more - a mitten or a glove?" and then apply the question to a skirt and a pair of trousers, both of which provide adequate coverage. It is obvious that there can be varying degrees of immodesty depending on the cut of the trousers, but that there is no such thing as 'modest' trousers - they may look modest on the clothes rack, but they behave like any other trousers when you put them on. The 'crux' of the matter, (if you get my meaning), is that even if trouser legs are of generous width and not particularly clinging, the fitted area is bound to offset the female form to a greater or lesser extent, and its very visibility is what causes an immodest impression to be fixed in the mind. Any woman who does not agree should take a long, hard look in the mirror and try to see herself as others (especially men) see her! Perhaps then she will agree that trousers reveal much more than gender.


Let's talk modesty - and honesty

Women often say they wear slacks because they are more comfortable or convenient for getting in and out of cars, warmer in winter etc., and shorts because the weather is hot (but it is even hotter in Purgatory!). But with a little of the ingenuity and resourcefulness for which women are famed, a judicious combination of articles of apparel can be chosen from among the contents of a woman's wardrobe to enable her to wear skirts for many occasions - windy days and sub-zero temperatures, cycling, hiking and riding side-saddle, for instance - all without the need to wear trousers. There are some sporting activities which cannot be done in a skirt and so must be out of bounds for women. Sacrificing convenience and freedom is not easily done, but if a more restricted life-style for the sake of modesty and propriety is the path of greater holiness, it is also potentially one of greater sacrifice and will bring its rewards in increased graces.

----------------------------------------

Ah, remember the dark ages?

Oops. I see the year 2010 on that site ...

In case you didn't catch it, that's a good Christian Brit writing there. RC, granted, but Christian and Brit all the same.

But no, of course not. It's only those Muslim barbarians who harbour notions like this about women.

Whirley - well said and seconded!
Liz

http://jewish-practices.suite101.com/article.cfm/
choosing-clothing-guidelines-for-orthodox-jewish-women

Orthodox Jewish women are taught to dress modestly and conservatively, and there are many rules that dictate the types of clothing these women can wear.

According to Orthodox Jewish beliefs, a women should not wish to attract any attention from any man other than her husband, and her clothing choices must reflect this desire. ...

Orthodox Jewish women are not permitted to wear [trousers]. Skirts and dresses are appropriate as long as they fall below the knee. It is considered inappropriate to show knees in the company of men.

Shirts must be high collared and cleavage should not be visible. Sleeves must be at least elbow length. Many Orthodox Jewish women also shy away from bright colors, as it's believed that these colors may attract extra, unnecessary attention. However, dark patterns and jeweled tones are considered appropriate for Orthodox Jewish women, and often, one can find tops and skirts with beautiful and intricate patterns.

>>>> Jewish Women's Hair Coverings or "Scheitels"

When an Orthodox Jewish woman gets married, she will cover her natural hair with a wig called a 'scheitel.' Only her husband is now allowed to see her natural hair. Scheitels are beautifully made and sold for various prices in many colors and styles. Some Orthodox Jewish women change them often, while others stick with the same one for years. Choosing a scheitel is very important because it says a lot about a woman's personal style.

Some women will choose not to wear the scheitel, but will instead wear a head covering such as a hat or scarf that covers the entire head. This is a different type of fashion statement, but also a feasible choice.

------------------------------------------------------------

Orthodox Jewish women are oppressed. (Believe me, this is not the half, or even the 1%, of it.) Imagine how hot those wigs must be on days like I'm having here. What woman in her right mind would *choose* to dress like the above in summer, with a wig on top??

Wigs disguise a person. Eyewitness identification of criminals often focuses on hair colour. Imagine Orthodox Jewish women wandering abroad in sunglasses, blonde Veronica Lake wigs, and maybe even headscarves, holding up corner shops. No one would ever be able to identify them.


Now about those Mediterranean widow women and their black get-ups and headscarves, prowling the streets of Europe ... and England. They are obviously oppressed and dangerous. Something needs to be done. I'm sure we all agree.

"British culture" is what you say it is.

I get it.

I personally think that since "British culture" meant, for centuries, roaming around the world stamping all over other people's religions and cultures and traditions and rights, the British can suck it up and stop whining, myself.

Liz, thing is, it shld be one law for all. Why should Sikhs be allowed to wear their head gear cos of their religion/culture etc and not be enforced to wear proper head helmet protection like the rest of us. ANSWER cos we're too bloody bothered abt upsetting people from other cultures.

As a British culture,. we dont wear Burkas, as a British culture,. we wear crash helmets.......what we shld be saying is "this is OUR culture, like it or bloody lump it",,,,,,,,,

EDIT. i DONT HAVE A PROB WITH KILTS, ITS PART OF THE bRITISH CULTURE.........

Suemaid -- Leave the kilts alone!!!

Jock

"I think a lot of us quite like those Europeans but it doesn't mean we like abiding by their rules which we do whether we like it or not."

Yes, well, SRS, that's what I had in mind.

Their rules are to be rejected a good bit of the time, but when it comes to the wearing of burqas, suddenly they're the role models to be followed.

When in London, do as the Parisians do.



This may amuse:

http://boingboing.net/2010/03/31/bikini-protest-of-fr.html

(I tend to find the bemusing amusing, so I'll smile.)


I find this amusing too, of course:

http://www.canada.com/life/Europeans+opposed+Islamic+veil+schools+Study/2960868/story.html

(I believe "the use of crucifixes in classrooms" must be read to mean "the wearing of crucifixes in classrooms.)

I was about to ask here how many would favour banning the wearing of crucifixes.

----------------------------------------------

MADRID - Just over half of Europeans surveyed opposed allowing Islamic headscarves in schools but backed the presence of crucifixes in classrooms, according to a Spanish study obtained by AFP Wednesday.

A total 52.6 per cent of those polled in 12 European Union member states along were "opposed" or "totally opposed" to the use of the garment in schools, according to the study carried out by the research department of BBVA, Spain's second-largest bank.

Opposition to the veil was highest in Bulgaria with 84.3 per cent against and France with 68.7 per cent opposed and it was lowest in Poland with only 25.6 per cent against followed by Denmark with 28.1 per cent opposed.

By contrast 54.4 per cent of those polled were in favour of classrooms displaying crucifixes.

In Spain and Italy, two nations with a strong Roman Catholic tradition, support for the use of crucifixes in classrooms stood at 69.9 per cent and 49.3 per cent respectively.

Support for the use of crucifixes in classrooms shot up to 77 per cent in Britain and 78.8 per cent in Denmark.

The issue of the use of Islamic headscarves has been thrust into the spotlight once again in Europe due to controversial moves by France and Belgium to ban Muslim full face veils.

Last week France announced it would seek a law to ban Muslim residents and visitors from wearing a burqa or a niqab in public, while Belgium was poised to pass a similar ban until its ruling coalition collapsed on Thursday.

The BBVA study polled 1,500 people in 12 EU member states — Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden — as well as in Switzerland and Turkey on a variety of issues.

The question on the use of the veil and crucifixes in classrooms was posed only to participants in the study in the EU member states.

-----------------------------------------

Tolerant bunch, Europeans. Ban *headscarves* in the clssroom, but allow crucifixes dangling around necks.

If we ride on a motorbike without a crash helmet we are prosecuted, but Sikhs do not have to wear one - surely from a safey point they would want to wear one
Liz

Ooh that's a harsh comment Janey. I think a lot of us quite like those Europeans but it doesn't mean we like abiding by their rules which we do whether we like it or not.

On another note, I know a colleague who is a devout Muslim but I would not call him fanatical even though he dresses in a traditional Muslim way. Please forgive my ignorance or rather my memory as I cannot recall the proper name. I would not call him fanatical as I would be insulting him. I think he is one of the most kindest, calmest, gentlest people I have ever worked with and I have never heard him complain about anything even though he has been through so much.

If it were biologically possible for men to give birth they would want more than the statutory time away from work that's for sure.

I guess I don't feel comfortable around strange (to me) clothing because I don't really like change! That and the association with the fanatical element within the Muslim faith definitely unsettles me.

Sue (the grumpy one)

x

Jupiter Joy -- "everyone should be treated the same"

Let us then refuse to allow women leave from their jobs to give birth.

Men do not get leave from their jobs to give birth. And everyone must be treated the same.

Do you see the point? It is not always "fair" or "equal" to *treat everyone the same*.

Let me reiterate the point I made before, however.

Wearing a balaclava for any reason ***is not the same*** as wearing a woman burqa for her own religious or cultural reasons, no matter how often you or anyone says it is.

"we need to think of the risks"

WHAT risks?

People have been blown up in the UK by men carrying backpacks.

Why are you not calling for a ban on men carrying backpacks?????????

i agree blinkin things just clutter up the place.

Ban wedding dresses.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/02/taliban-buying-children-to-serve-as-suicide-bomber/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1446003.stm

so you see things do happen like this.

im not saying they will but they could

just going through the list...

janey .i dont dislike france/belgium or spain in fact im going to spain in a month .
also as this thread seems to go off track ,my point was simply everyone should be treated the same .
with regards to terrorism its there it happens .weather a handfull have been blown up or a whole nation it makes no odds to me .we need to think of the risks .im sure if a family member was caught up in a terrorist attack the rules would change.as for sots and kilts ...maybe i have a fetish for men in skirts ...there cute really
i think its right that helmuts should be removed ,or anything that covers the face in a bank or shop etc etc.that includes a burka.treat everyone the same thats easy enough.

......all those hairy legs and knobbly knees??



They'll be banning shorts next!! ;O))

It's unnatural!

*shudder*



Whaddaya mean, you stupid mismanaged website, "service unavailable"? ....