Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
WE’RE HALFWAY THERE!
NO BURQAS DURING PRAYER!
(except they would presumably still be allowed during prayer)
so the veils are often removed anyway.
My joke fails, on several levels, in other words.
Various Arab states have banned the veil in certain situations (doctors, teachers), which seems to be the moderate, sensible policy on this matter. To completely ban a cultural piece of clothing, whether you think it is distasteful or not, is pretty fucking disgraceful
Great well thats that settled then. We can all go home.
The dehumanisation of women is just "distasteful"!?
if being unable to see a person's face and body as they interact with you dehumanises them, then why spend all your time on an internet forum?
if it's imposed on a woman then that's one thing. In fact, i quite like the idea of a man forcing a woman to wear the veil being heavily fined. But it's a person's own right to decide whether they want to abide by their cultural traditions, no matter how unfathomable they may seem to outsiders
grow up in swamp. father was piece of dung, mother was toilet.
but also i think that the state cannot impose this, I mean Im confused, does this also mean that one cannot wear a full face balaclava or a mask?
I can understand that where people can insist on dress codes they might try it there, but how can yo udo it in public, what is the purpose of this law, if it is an attempt to stop islam treating women differently from men then I guess that is fair enough, but somehow I dont think that it is.......dunno need more info...
Dont think you can demand that people fully show their face always.
"a law to prohibit the covering of the face in public" but i can hardly see them arresting people in balaclavas and masks on the pistes....
what would we do without our decorative respirators and goggles
unfair and intrusive, how the hell can you demand that people dont do that?
Thats implying that our bodies do not belong to us, its implying that they belong to the state (OK I know that to all intents and purposes the state does 'own' us........but we have made up the concept of human rights where we are meant to 'own' ourselves)
and motorcycle helmets?
but thats my point laws have to be exact and clear
so they have to cite practical reasons like 'terrorism' when the issue is more one of identity and community for most people. Its more revealing of the neuroses of the government for them to put this ban in on practical grounds rather than them just saying 'we're a secular country and also we think this practice is demeaning' or whatever.
everyone will know she has a cold sore!
It's just so clearly both those things!!!!!!11