France bans face-covering Islamic veil

[Muslimwoman]

Lets be clear: France did not ban face-covering Islamic veil. Their government did. That is an important difference. There was a time the French government took far greater steps against the Jewish and the Masonic.

They did so with the overwhelming support of the French population, so not such a difference in my opinion.

 

[seattlegal]

but because of something that is fundamental to liberal democracies such as the ones we both (and the french) live in - although liberal democracies differ widely, as has already been established.

You call this freaking liberal? I call it a secular police state!

there may very well be health issues in over-modest clothing, in which case i'm sure muslims are not the only ones affected; but we are not talking about face covering as a health issue, but as a social and political issue, with most reference to how it affects others. the trouble here, i think, is that you don't think someone covering their face affects me, but i think it does. in that sense, you might be able to link it to second hand smoke or drunken yobbishness, but not to something such as cancer or liver disease, which are the primary concern of the person affected and thus their inalienable right in a free society to harm themselves if they wish. consequently, i support the smoking ban and the enforcement of alcohol tolerance zones, just as equally as i support severe restrictions on covering one's face, but NOT an outright ban. if you want to cover up at mosque, or in your house, that's your affair, but in a public place like the street, a workplace or a shop or bank (i'm not too sure about cars, but not if you're driving) i would say not. by the same logic, i support the full legalisation of drugs, but NOT their use in an antisocial fashion. and here, i think we get to the nub of it. you, yourself, are not an antisocial person, as i can tell from talking to you. however, if i met you and you were veiled, i would consider that antisocial, as in what i consider "normal" interaction it would be antisocial to cover one's face. so, here we have it - the abuse of drugs of all sorts (legal and illegal) is germane here, so what is being abused exactly? i think i would say either personal modesty or individual expression (and possibly both) are being abused in a narcissistic, exhibitionist fashion. the overall effect is an antisocial one and, when considered at a societal level, harmful to gender equality, community cohesion and social inclusion.

Pfft! I wouldn't want to show my face in a society that calls itself liberal but institutes a freaking secular police state! Call me narcissistic and anti-social if you like, but I would be ashamed to have to be a part of such a hypocritical society.

i'm not afraid of the spread of radical islam as much as i am concerned by the spread of BEHAVIOURS associated with radical islam, which has co-opted core values of liberal democracy - in this case, freedom of expression and freedom of association - in order to embed behaviours which ultimately harm these core values.

So, isn't adapting the secular version of Saudi religious police spreading those BEHAVIOURS you you profess to dislike and co-opting the core values of liberal democracy--namely: freedom of expression and freedom of association?

i am not saying that radical islam is the only ideology that does this - i would say the same of radical leftism or ethnic nationalism. in this case, we are talking about radical islam, but the principle remains. incidentally, the one thing that radical islam, radical leftism and ethnic nationalism all have in common is their attitude to jews, which is one of the reasons it concerns me so particularly.

How is this NOT a case of "cultural (rather than ethnic) nationalism?"

covering your face in social interaction is a barrier to this acceptance.

So you are admitting to discriminating against those who chose to be veiled!

no - the right to cultural choices that do not harm the freedom of others or the freedoms of the society at large are intrinsic, not the right to, say, torture children as "witches" or refuse to hire someone in a hijab.

How does a veil harm society at large, except to remind them of their hypocrisy by banning it?

while you are wearing it, you are saying "look at me, i'm making a statement about my difference and that is going to influence how you interact with me; all the more so because you can't actually see my face, which is the normal influencer". you are, effectively, making a point about british society being too "unclean" to see your face.

Like I said earlier, I would be ashamed to be part of a so-called liberal secular police state.

one is saying "we demand that you show your difference so we can treat you unequally" and one is saying "we demand that you show your sameness so that we can treat you equally" - it's not the same thing at all.

ROFLMAO! I demand that you quit specifically targeting and dictating means of dress that do not violate public nudity laws, and enforcing it by governmental authority. It's just as nasty as the Saudi dress code enforcements.

 

[wil]

So living in the US, who do you think I have elected to represent myself before God? Who have you elected to represent yourself and your family?

Tis a majority rule. While I have not voted for a Presidential winner in quite a while...I participate in the process.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Seriously? We do know that migrant workers and landscapers in So Calif. were tested and found to be Vit D deficient don't we? The recent deficiency is not from lack of sun or too much sunscreen, but from industrial pollutants from our cars and homes...sheesh.

Sorry Wil what I was trying to say is that I would happily debate the issue of whether niqab wearing is a health risk.

then those homes should be sought out and re-educated.

Absolutely right .. but banning niqab is going to do bugger all to achieve that.

it's not about terrorism.

You have just finished saying "we don't want radical islamists here, so we're going to ban the clothing they insist on". How has radical Islam maifested itself harmfully in Western society other than through terrorism?

 

[peaceandkarma]

I think people should live their life and let other people live theirs. I've seen a lot a white women wearing muslim clothing and all they are doing is wearing clothes or following a religion they feel comfortable with. I'm English and I'm not too happy with the way western society is turning. I think a law againest drunkeness every Friday and Saturday night would be better than a law banning an item of clothing. I once worked with an Albanian and I asked him if Muslims and Christains lived in peace in Albania. His reply was I can live in peace anywhere. He never answered my question but gave me wise words instead.

 

[wil]

I think people should live their life and let other people live theirs. I've seen a lot a white women wearing muslim clothing and all they are doing is wearing clothes or following a religion they feel comfortable with. I'm English and I'm not too happy with the way western society is turning. I think a law againest drunkeness every Friday and Saturday night would be better than a law banning an item of clothing. I once worked with an Albanian and I asked him if Muslims and Christains lived in peace in Albania. His reply was I can live in peace anywhere. He never answered my question but gave me wise words instead.

nice...thanx

 

[Muslimwoman]

but because of something that is fundamental to liberal democracies such as the ones we both (and the french) live in

What is fundamental to liberal democracies is that they are both liberal and democratic ... or have I missed something?

Liberal - Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Democracy - A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

there may very well be health issues in over-modest clothing, in which case i'm sure muslims are not the only ones affected; but we are not talking about face covering as a health issue,

And neither was I. I was talking about niqab as an issue of unfairness.

i'm not afraid of the spread of radical islam as much as i am concerned by the spread of BEHAVIOURS associated with radical islam, which has co-opted core values of liberal democracy - in this case, freedom of expression and freedom of association

and what about my freedom to associate only with the people I choose to? My freedom to dress as I choose, my freedom to follow the faith I choose and my freedom to interpret that faith as I choose?

Or am I exempt from these freedoms because Islam is public enemy No1 at the moment?

incidentally, the one thing that radical islam, radical leftism and ethnic nationalism all have in common is their attitude to jews, which is one of the reasons it concerns me so particularly.

As I wear niqab that puts me squarely in your radical Islam camp (absolute tosh but hey ho it's your opinion). Other than my views on political Israel have I ever demonstrated to you a hatred of Jews, a dislike of Jews, an unpleasant view of Jews as a people, an unwillingness to communicate with Jews perhaps?

Oh no, it's you who have shown an unwillingness to communicate with me if I cover my face.

they are merely the tip of the whole festering, oil-money-funded, obscurantist iceberg. they are not the cause, they are a symptom.

I'm a symptom of what, Saudi influence ... that's laughable.

well, i hate to jump straight to the answer, but the answer most politicians give to that is "do what the jews do"

I've lived in Golders Green and the Jews wore Orthodox clothing, ensuring they were easily identifiable as Jews and did not mix outside their own community. All I want is the right to do the same.

because we are not seeking to convert the world, which is, at bottom, the most narcissistic, chauvinist act one can engage in - "you must become like me".

you mean like, we don't like the way you choose to dress so dress in a way that is acceptible to us?

this is why i say islam needs to reassess its priorities as a minority religion in a liberal democracy. if it cannot come to terms with this, a clash is inevitable.

Great so lets deal with that rather than picking on the way a tiny minority of women choose to dress.

clearly not, if their conversion involved them being inducted into an ideology which dis-integrates them again, which is, in my opinion, precisely what has happened.

Do I sound like a brainwashed moron to you? That's a serious question.

this is not a serious argument - there are plenty of islamic cultures where the niqab is not considered necessary, consequently it must be cultural;

As so many Jewish men do not grow peyot (is grow the right term?) can I assume it it purely cultural or would you agree the men who do believe they are following the correct interpretation of scripture?

Luckily I don't take my Islamic knowledge from you, I look to the scholars who through the centuries have said niqab is fard, here are some of them:

Ibn Ábbaas, Ibn Jarir, Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, Abu Ubaidah Salmani, Ubaida bin Abu Sufyan bin al-Harith, Hassan Al-Basri, Imam Muhammad bin Sirin, Imaam Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Al-Mundhir, At-Tabari.

We know scholars have debated this for centuries and some say it is obligatory, others recommended but as a Muslim this is a blessing for me because it means I have the choice to follow whichever ruling I choose but this is far cry from simply cultural.

while you are wearing it, you are saying "look at me, i'm making a statement about my difference and that is going to influence how you interact with me; all the more so because you can't actually see my face, which is the normal influencer". you are, effectively, making a point about british society being too "unclean" to see your face.

WTF My point in my earlier post was that I was angry because France decided women were forced to wear niqab and it oppressed them ... having spoken to ONE woman who CHOSE to wear niqab. Now you are telling us what we think and want from wearing it. Total arrogance.

no, that would just be rude.

so in one case I am simply rude and in the other a threat to society ... please explain.

not at all, you can, as i have said, wear a hijab, a jilbab, whatever you like, but leave your face visible.

not if you believe it is fard.

you don't even need that; they already include more than enough restrictions - i don't like it, so you know what? i don't go there and i don't do business there; they are incompatible with my position.

so what you are saying is women in niqab simply don't need to come here ... effectively turning us into the mirror image of the Saudi's ... not a road I want my country to go down.

It also doesn't deal with the women born here who choose to wear it because they believe they are religiously obligated to do so.

obviously it is a lot more than 2,000 women and their husbands, don't be silly.

So how many people do you think this law will affect?

they're not banning the hijab, are they, so they're not banning islamic dress per se. i would protest the banning of the hijab.

Am repeating myself now ... most niqab wearers believe, with strong scholarly evidence that niqab is fard. That makes it obligatory Islamic dress.

and clearly this isn't a religious duty, so why are we having the argument again?

Would you like me to provide all the evidence that suggests niqab IS a religious duty? There's a lot of it but I'll post it if you'll read it.

when a liberal democracy treats a minority group even 5% as bad as how arab countries treat baha'i, or kurds, or sunnis / shi'a treat each other, or anything like that, then this argument might stack up.

the, they are worse than we are argument is just a sorry excuse to pardon our own distateful behaviour and I would expect more of you.

that won't wash either - some things that some people get up to in other countries are not acceptable, unless you wish to dispense entirely with the idea of universal human rights. i personally would also include universal human responsibilities.

Universal human rights apply to me too and my right to dress as a please. You might not like it but that's just tuff.

no, we are telling them to integrate.

They go out to work, they pay taxes, they add to our economy, they speak English and they socialise with colleagues and friends ... how exaqctly is that not integrated?

one is saying "we demand that you show your difference so we can treat you unequally" and one is saying "we demand that you show your sameness so that we can treat you equally" - it's not the same thing at all.

My passport says I am female. It is perfectly obvious I am female so why does the document need to state this ... is it so people can discriminate against me?

 

[Muslimwoman]

I think people should live their life and let other people live theirs. I've seen a lot a white women wearing muslim clothing and all they are doing is wearing clothes or following a religion they feel comfortable with. I'm English and I'm not too happy with the way western society is turning. I think a law againest drunkeness every Friday and Saturday night would be better than a law banning an item of clothing. I once worked with an Albanian and I asked him if Muslims and Christains lived in peace in Albania. His reply was I can live in peace anywhere. He never answered my question but gave me wise words instead.

Great post, thank you and yes wise words indeed.

 

[seattlegal]

Well, I suppose the women could take a clue from the Orthodox Jewish women who wear wigs to cover their heads: wear fake santa claus beards. I would suggest applying a nice green dye to them.

 

[luecy7]

Tis a majority rule. While I have not voted for a Presidential winner in quite a while...I participate in the process.

Sadly not. Even if we pretend that membership and taxes were optional for a majority of people, you seriously see no difference between the majority forming rule together versus the majority electing a representative to rule? No difference?

I find that one leads towards evil, and the other towards good. That polarized. When it is rule by a man that was elected by the majority (republic), it leads towards evil because the majority do not take responsibility, and the one man's education is paid for at a high price. An actual rule by a majority (democracy), leads towards good because whether or not the people are being hypocrites, everyone that takes part will have their own decision to be responsible for and learn from, and arguments from others to contend with. The false reasoning of a hypocrite will eventually get cut down in the latter case.

Certainly nobody can remove the choice from those who prefer to think they can get away with electing a representative to represent themselves before God, but it likewise needs to be a choice for those who would prefer NOT to elect a representative. In courts in the USA, individuals are permitted to represent themselves. If it is not the same in all aspects of government, then it is not rule by the people, especially not a majority.

 

[islamicway]

One it seems to me your posts are indication you wish to stay in the discussion. If you don't post on this topic again, that will be indication that you do not wish to participate in the discussion...as always actions speak louder than words.

Now that the obvious is put to rest, we can continue, as MW has provided some interesting fodder for discussion...

Backpacks vs. viels... which have had more bombs.

With a viel, can we easily determine identification? Can one imagine a line up...third burqa from the left...

But have we had to have a line up...out of all the robberies, all the thefts, all the bombings how many have been with burqa...what is the actual risk to the public??

Lastly if covering your lower face, your nose and your mouth is a threat to society....what will we do during flu season freakouts?

v

Isn't this post quite a different stance from the one you had when you replied to me?

 

[wil]

Isn't this post quite a different stance from the one you had when you replied to me?

I believe I was asking questions to ascertain what the law has said and how it would react...

And I always reserve the right to change my mind as further information presents itself...don't we all?

I still see an issue in regards to identification, and question the common sense in saying this or that can't be worn in public. All this will change when and if we get gangs of burkas robbing banks...(females or males dressed up)

 

[seattlegal]

I believe I was asking questions to ascertain what the law has said and how it would react...

And I always reserve the right to change my mind as further information presents itself...don't we all?

I still see an issue in regards to identification, and question the common sense in saying this or that can't be worn in public. All this will change when and if we get gangs of burkas robbing banks...(females or males dressed up)

Darn! I was hoping to get a majority rule requiring wil to limit his clothing choices to pink tutus! (Even if only for your birthday)

The reasoning behind this: wil might be too timid and driven by societal pressures to wear a pink tutu. This will give him the opportunity to display the bravery only exhibited by girls: the wearing of the pink tutu.

Edit to add: Maybe we can get a majority rule requiring French Governmental legislators to wear pink tutus!

 

[wil]

Darn! I was hoping to get a majority rule requiring wil to limit his clothing choices to pink tutus! (Even if only for your birthday)

The reasoning behind this: wil might be too timid and driven by societal pressures to wear a pink tutu. This will give him the opportunity to display the bravery only exhibited by girls: the wearing of the pink tutu.

Edit to add: Maybe we can get a majority rule requiring French Governmental legislators to wear pink tutus!

2 funny....

I'm headed off to Rally today... a weekend church retreat with teens run by teens. The Regies (the kids elected by the teens to organize the rallies) one year decided they needed a faerie to dance around and (for the life of me I can't remember what the faerie's purpose was) but anyway they stopped at the dollar store having a ball picking up pink hair, a tiara, and a pink tutu amongst other accoutrements... Then at Rally they came upto me and said...of all the adults we figured you'd be willing....

So yes somewhere out there, from a couple years ago, is me flitting around with my wand and faerie dust....in a pink tutu...full beard...no veil.

 

[seattlegal]

2 funny....

I'm headed off to Rally today... a weekend church retreat with teens run by teens. The Regies (the kids elected by the teens to organize the rallies) one year decided they needed a faerie to dance around and (for the life of me I can't remember what the faerie's purpose was) but anyway they stopped at the dollar store having a ball picking up pink hair, a tiara, and a pink tutu amongst other accoutrements... Then at Rally they came upto me and said...of all the adults we figured you'd be willing....

So yes somewhere out there, from a couple years ago, is me flitting around with my wand and faerie dust....in a pink tutu...full beard...no veil.

lol! OK I'll just post a picture with a dove for wil, and a tutu for me:

 

[wil]

that is a beautiful picture!!

 

[Muslimwoman]

Well, I suppose the women could take a clue from the Orthodox Jewish women who wear wigs to cover their heads: wear fake santa claus beards. I would suggest applying a nice green dye to them.

I wonder what Santa Claus will do come Christmas time??

Maybe we will see gangs of santas robbing banks Wil now burqas are banned

 

[Bhaktajan II]

There is "Official Historical Record" that is manifest in a particular society.

There is "Foreign Historical Record(s)" that is manifest in other particular society(s).

Trying to overtly change the course of History based on "Foreign Historical Record(s)" is an imposition upon the host country.

Everyone can be civil ---but there are already precidents as to what a country's "Official Historical Record" asks their guests and residents to adhere to.

One person's Tradition is another person's alien Tradition ---why change other's traditions?.

 

[bob x]

How has radical Islam maifested itself harmfully in Western society other than through terrorism?

LOL, in America we have the saying "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

 

[bananabrain]

You call this freaking liberal? I call it a secular police state!

What is fundamental to liberal democracies is that they are both liberal and democratic ... or have I missed something?

yes - i think you're both labouring under the misapprehension that a liberal democracy is by definition "liberal" as meaning, some sort of rainbow happy-clappy student union free from any kind of "ism". this is not the case. it does not mean, as both of you seem to think, "a democracy full of liberals, devoted to being liberal". the french revolution was, for example, a liberal democracy, until the jacobin "terror" and the subsequent napoleonic coup.

Liberal democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the "liberalism" referred to is not of the actual views you are supposed to hold, but of the way things are set up. this usually means universal suffrage, a constitution, periodic elections, certain guaranteed rights and freedoms, separation of powers, checks and balances, enabled by individual and economic freedom. essentially, it means "not a one-party state/dictatorship/governed by fiat"; it means that everyone, even those not currently running the place are represented one way or another by a "loyal opposition" or some such.

Pfft! I wouldn't want to show my face in a society that calls itself liberal but institutes a freaking secular police state!

what you appear to be objecting to is any kind of limit to what is considered acceptable behaviour and, of course, that is what laws are for. a society is not a "police state" because it has laws and people to enforce those laws, although i am aware that those laws may sometimes be unfair, or applied unfairly.

Call me narcissistic and anti-social if you like, but I would be ashamed to have to be a part of such a hypocritical society.

i think i would call your position unrealistic and unworkable and, in fact, i challenge you to find any way of running a society on this planet that betters liberal democracy, because i don't think there is one - to paraphrase winston churchill, it is the worst possible way of running things - apart from all the others.

So, isn't adapting the secular version of Saudi religious police spreading those BEHAVIOURS you you profess to dislike and co-opting the core values of liberal democracy--namely: freedom of expression and freedom of association?

for you to view them as equivalent shows a spectacular lack of proportion. both freedom of expression and freedom of association have *limits* in any liberal democracy, whether you are talking about shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre or allowing paedophiles to mix with children. the line must be drawn somewhere. i reject your comparison with the saudi religious police; i am taking an entirely reasonable and moderate line which allows both religious expression *and* freedom of association to a *considerable* degree - this cannot be said of the position of the saudi religious police, which would rather people were burned to death than were dressed immodestly.

How is this NOT a case of "cultural (rather than ethnic) nationalism?"

i really do not understand your objection. i am not obliged to consider the saudi system as equal in merit to that of the uk's liberal democracy, nor even that of the french system. this is not cultural nationalism, but a sober moral judgement that i feel compelled to make. if that is what you mean by this remark.

So you are admitting to discriminating against those who chose to be veiled!

only if you also consider it to be "discrimination" to object to a drunken yobbo yelling, fighting and throwing up on the pavement on a friday night. both are abuses of the freedoms offered by liberal democracy and both rub up against the *democratically legislated* (unlike in saudi) limits of tolerance for a given behaviour. your comment, however, appears to be trying to paint me as some sort of bigot, when all i am doing is defining precisely where i believe the line should be drawn - you appear to object to any notion of a line, which is in turn based on a misconception of what a liberal democracy is.

How does a veil harm society at large, except to remind them of their hypocrisy by banning it?

i've just explained that in my previous posts.

ROFLMAO! I demand that you quit specifically targeting and dictating means of dress that do not violate public nudity laws, and enforcing it by governmental authority. It's just as nasty as the Saudi dress code enforcements.

only by the application of spectacular moral blindness. public nudity laws are there for the benefit of society as a whole, not to target blameless nudists in a nudist colony, nor are they there to criminalise nudity in and of itself. they are there because a common standard must be agreed and that common standard cannot be flouted with impunity simply because someone really, really, really wants to and feels persecuted if they can't.

Absolutely right .. but banning niqab is going to do bugger all to achieve that.

i agree with you in the long term, obviously we need social change and a more comprehensive approach, but until a line is drawn to define where exactly the limits of acceptable behaviour lie, we cannot begin to look at the issue of why the line should be where it is. we have to have the debate as a society - one cannot simply close it off by dog-whistle politics.

You have just finished saying "we don't want radical islamists here, so we're going to ban the clothing they insist on". How has radical Islam manifested itself harmfully in Western society other than through terrorism?

you are kidding, right? how about the way saudi funding has undermined the curriculum of islamic education for the last 25 years? how about the way it has created segregated communities (not my words, those of trevor phillips of the CRE) in some areas like blackburn, oldham, bradford or tower hamlets? how about the way that maududist parties such as jamaat-i-islami or tablighi jamaat have undermined the more moderate sufi-influenced forms of islam that the bangladeshi, pakistani and indian muslims - or the arab and iranian communities - brought with them? how about the way in which discourse has hardened and become extreme to a degree whereby people now speak openly about replacing uk civil law with shari'ah? where the likes of anwar al-awlaki speak in mainstream mosques like the ELM? how about the way that abu hamza was able to take over the finsbury park mosque? how about the way that islamic societies on campus are now unable to co-exist peacefully with any other form of religious or non-religious expression? how about the thuggish behaviour of hizb-ut-tahrir? how about the censorship of the media from plays to cartoons - "mustn't upset the muslims, or there'll be riots"? how about the widespread sexual confusion and frustration that reigns in traditional communities where "nice girls" are not available, but "nice boys" no longer marry young? how about the problems in the somali and other african muslim communities maintaining that FGM is somehow part of islam? how about the outright poison spread by the likes of press tv, an iranian-funded propaganda channel? i mean, seriously, can you not see this stuff? it worries the hell out of me. there is no *REASON* it has to be this way. the problem is that the UK appears to have stopped asserting the way it wants to be - it is not only racists and islamophobes that have a problem, it is also those of us who still believe in some form of multicultural society not based on unconditional surrender to whatever we are permitted under a new khilafa; people who still think liberal democracy has merit and deserves to be defended as the guarantor of our civil liberties in a way that no other system has ever done effectively. you have to understand something. i want to enable religion to co-exist in a modern society; the way political islam behaves does not admit of anything else but its own victory and the subjugation of others.

I was talking about niqab as an issue of unfairness.

well, i do not consider it unfair that muslims should have every other option open to them except face-covering - but should they feel the need, they can do so in religious settings such as the mosque or within their own homes. a compromise must be reached and i for one believe that civil society has offered a more than fair environment.

and what about my freedom to associate only with the people I choose to?

you still have that freedom, although if you are to interact with official institutions from the NHS to state schools to the HMRC, you must do so in an officially sanctioned way. i do not see how that relates to your freedom of association - nobody, neither myself nor yourself, has the freedom not to associate with any forms of society whatsoever. i suppose, should you feel it necessary, you could nowadays do just about everything over the internet and be homeschooled, use a postal vote and never go to the doctor, if you wished it, the only time you would need to answer the door would be to take your shopping in, but by the same token how would society be able to check through relevant institutional interfaces that you were not being chained up in a basement somewhere? as i said above, the freedom to associate is not absolute, it has certain restrictions.

My freedom to dress as I choose, my freedom to follow the faith I choose and my freedom to interpret that faith as I choose?

again, all of these are not absolute and have certain restrictions. we just disagree about where the line should be drawn, i hope we are not disagreeing that the restrictions don't exist.

Or am I exempt from these freedoms because Islam is public enemy No1 at the moment?

i have just described how you continue to benefit from them, despite the restrictions. you have considerable latitude within these restrictions; i would consider it a singular lack of appreciation for the struggles that our society has gone in order to preserve them for you to despise them entirely.

As I wear niqab that puts me squarely in your radical Islam camp (absolute tosh but hey ho it's your opinion). Other than my views on political Israel have I ever demonstrated to you a hatred of Jews, a dislike of Jews, an unpleasant view of Jews as a people, an unwillingness to communicate with Jews perhaps?

i think you're an oddity, but in a nice way. i don't think most people think as deeply as you or as sensibly as you and, unfortunately, i think you are defending something indefensible here, because it happens to infringe on your personal preferences and tribal loyalties.

Oh no, it's you who have shown an unwillingness to communicate with me if I cover my face.

i don't like doing so, but there is a principle at stake. if i came over to your house or met you in your mosque i would speak to you with a veil on, but not in the street; that is because i consider that you should have a greater degree of freedom and control in your own domain, if not in the public domain. clearly we are still able to communicate, nonetheless.

I'm a symptom of what, Saudi influence ... that's laughable.

you really think that al-azhar hasn't been influenced by the norms of the gulf? i find that difficult to believe, but remember i am also viewing you as part of an unusual minority and thus not particularly representative.

I've lived in Golders Green and the Jews wore Orthodox clothing, ensuring they were easily identifiable as Jews and did not mix outside their own community. All I want is the right to do the same.

what you want is not the same. jews still show their faces and still take their children to NHS hospitals and interact with other organs of official society - they are not exempt from dealing with the police or social services, appearing on CCTV or being identifiable in the street. as i have already explained, face-covering does not allow this. as far as i am concerned, you already have everything that they have in golders green or even stamford hill, but apparently, that's not enough - you want to be able to extend your personal domain into the public domain. some of the gg lot want to close off their roads on Shabbat or object to immodestly dressed women in adverts on golders green road - this i consider to be precisely the same form of claiming special privilege and i do not think it should be granted. it is only a short step from there to demanding modest dress in "our" area. that i cannot agree to.

you mean like, we don't like the way you choose to dress so dress in a way that is acceptible to us?

this is not about dress. this is about the way you choose to interact with wider society in the PUBLIC domain.

Great so lets deal with that rather than picking on the way a tiny minority of women choose to dress.

as i have already said, this is a symptom of the wider problem.

b'shalom

bananabrain