General Chat

Suemaid -- Leave the kilts alone!!!

Jock

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.........

"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.

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.

Whirley - well said and seconded!
Liz

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.

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?

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.

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.

Here's one for you all. ;)

http://www.sikhchic.com/article-detail.php?id=122&cat=8

C'mon, you gotta click to see the pic!

I have an idea that Sikhs in the British military have worn turbans for a long time - ?

I am sure if one had a serious head injury, he would wish he had worn a helmet
Liz

And if an adult Christian Scientist dies for want of a blood transfusion, they may regret it too.

We still don't hold them down and stick blood into their veins.

I am actually somewhat of two minds about turbans on motorcycles. No one needs to ride a motorcycle. I think making the choice, turban or motorcycle, might not be too drastic a rule. It is a rule that applies universally otherwise, for good reason, just as seatbelt laws do. Anyone who doesn't want to wear a helmet instead of a turban would be free not to ride a motorcycle. It's not quite comparable to making a choice between wearing a burqa and going out to buy groceries.

On the other hand, turbans on motorcycles aren't really that huge a deal.


On the article and photo I linked to above -- the very clear point is that by changing RCMP rules and traditions drastically, to allow members to wear turbans rather than Stetsons (which are just a dumb yankee import anyhow), the result has been to *integrate* Sikhs into Canadian society to a greater extent. There are devout Sikh members of the RCMP now, just as there have always been devout Roman Catholics and Baptists. And that really is a *good* thing, for Canadian society, not just for Sikhs.

And Sikhs in Canadian society see this -- Sikhs in the RCMP where there might otherwise not have been, and acceptance of Sikh practices in the RCMP -- and feel included. As do other minority groups who see minorities in the RCMP and other institutions.

NOT allowing devout Sikhs to wear turbans would have *excluded* them, not integrated them, and conveyed the same exclusionary message to other minority groups. Take off your turban or you do not qualify to work in one of the most symbolically Canadian institutions in the country -- not a really good way to get people to "integrate".

Banning burqas does the same thing. It doesn't encourage people to integrate. It just tells them they aren't wanted.

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*.


no janey i dont see the point at all.this is about facial coverings .nuns show there face even tho there head is covered.vicars wear long cloak things but you can see there face .
one lady points out about turbans ...a valid point.we should be treated the same .the terrorist issue is just one part of it.this whole thread was about some want it banned some do not .not women not being allowed time off for babies.were way off track here

as for how the british have treated peeps in the past is a whole new thread .
im british with other bits in me .the british treated the irish bad many years ago as they did the scotish .but pls feel free to stick a thread up .thats the reply to this bit,j aneyCanuck Today at 19:01 Request review
"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.

Joy, I'm sorry if you won't even try to follow reasoning and prefer to stick with great big pronouncements that you make up that don't make sense, but it's not my problem.

You're the one who made the great big pronouncement that everybody should be treated the same.

IF that applies to what women will be allowed to wear on the street
THEN it applies to EVERYTHING ELSE too.

Everybody should be treated the same.

Pensioners should not get free bus passes. They should be treated the same as bankers in their 30s.

Women should not get time off work to deliver babies. They should be treated the same as men.

People with disabilities should not expect ramps at public buildings. They should be treated the same as the fully abled. And the blind should not expect Braille on elevator buttons in hospitals.


"the terrorist issue is just one part of it"?

Well, on that part of it, I am still waiting for your answer to my question:

Why are you not calling for men to be banned from carrying backpacks in public places?????

Men with backpacks HAVE BOMBED public places in England.

Women in burqas HAVE COMMITTED NO CRIMES in
England.

What sense does this make?

Maybe it's because banning backpacks would affect someone other than the nasty foreigners. I don't know.


And I guess I'll have to wait to find out what the other parts of this are. I haven't seen any. Are you offering some other reason for banning women from wearing burqas, other than that they might be wearing body bombs?

You should see what we wear in the winter here in Canada. Any one of us could be wearing enough bombage to blow up the CN Tower and you'd never know. And No.1 wears his parka hood so far over his face that all you can see is his nose. We haven't considered banning parkas yet, but maybe we should.

But let's be having it.

Why is it okay for men to walk around with backpacks?

"JC - if you had seen someone with brains spilling out of their skull, due to a head injury, or a person die because they refused a blood transfusion, you may think differently."

Think differently from what please, Liz?

Jupiter Joy, how exactly is your telling me to start my own thread a reply to my point: that the British have never had any compunctions (and still have none) about running the show in other people's countries, but persist in whining and carrying on about other people simply engaging in their own private cultural/religious practices in Britain?

Not seeing it, myself.

Woman wearing burqa on street in England
vs.
Military killing women and children in Iraq

Hmmmmmm. The British sure are put upon and abused.


The 21st century world is multicultural.

A lot of people really need to get over it.

Faisel DID make an attempt to allow women to not wear the burqa - and tried for many other changes for women and society - part of the reason he was assasinated in 1974!
Oh - and when I met him I was wearing jeans and a very thin muslin top.
You can doubt and suspect what he really wanted all you like - it still doesn't change the fact that he was educated in britain and loved the place and all it's freedoms and wished his own people had half as much freedom.

As for quoting the strictures of other religions - has anyone suggested islam woman should cast off all their modesty? I don't think so.
The strictures of these ther religions all have one thing in common - the face is visible.
No-one has said the Hijab should be banned - it's the burqa, which hides the face.
Many women in moslem countries wear the hijab and not the burqa.
A lot wear western clothes too!

Oh Maggie,,,,,,,,I met King Faisel 2..the son while he was in Brittian,,,,,,he was in the RAF.!

here we have barred the wearing of helmets while in banks/shops/post offices etc,,,also the wearing of skimasks,,,reasons being they fully cover the face. why is a veil so very diffrent,they arent worn for any other reason than beinging oppressed by outdated laws that dont apply in Gt B..,,,,,,there is no religious reason to do so.but if they want to go about dressed in them its their choice,,,,,,,as weired as it seems to us,but if the helmet wearers start screaming then you cant blame them.....whats good for the goose.....

Liz 47 - PLEASE reply on thread, not by message
wait for me coming with you lol