Ban head coverings

[VanessaTony 3,567]

I have a muslim friend who wasn't wearing a headscarf for a while. She was maybe early 30's and relatively recently married. Anyway one day I saw her wearing one (a headscarf, not full, just covering her hair and neck) and she explained to me why...

She said that she was finding that her Western counterparts were getting "too friendly". Nothing too dramatic, just touching her on the shoulder, or other "mate" stuff. She said now she's been wearing it again she's found people respect her boundaries much more. They're more respectful. Watch their language, don't touch her or anything else like that. She said she feels "more at peace" wearing it again and has received several compliments on her gorgeous headscarves.

Now she hasn't faced any open discrimination (who knows what goes on behind closed doors) and I have to be honest lets think about what a change life has taken for a moment:

- smoking in public. In my personal opinion you should only be allowed at home. I should not be subjected to it on the streets or in doorways etc. Not only is it disgusting but I am allergic. It's a very selfish habit

- swearing in public. I was ALWAYS taught to never use foul language but at the very least to mind my manners in front of the elderly and small children.

- slutty clothing... this is a matter of opinion for what constitutes "slutty" but excessive cleavage, shorts that show butt cheeks (such as Kylie Minogue in that one video clip) and "thongs" (you americans call them) with a miniskirt is my view of slutty

- PDA's weren't permitted back "in the day"

- a "movie kiss" was a closed-mouthed kiss. No skin shown

- divorce is VERY high as is underage pregnancy etc

Suddenly these days we have naked people, profanity left right and centre, and drugs on TV. PDA's aren't as "bad" as they used to be. School dances no longer mean standing "arms length away"... A LOT has changed and I don't necessarily think for the best. Just as people look at me weird for using my "please and thank yous", for offering an elderly/disabled/pregnant person a seat on a bus, for not drinking or smoking or doing drugs.. I don't see me changing any time soon to please "Western Society". I plan on retaining parts of "me" that make me feel good about me. Just as this whole head-dress is their "thing".

IF someone chooses to wear the full-garb that is their right.. just as it is my right to cross to the other side of the road, choose to stand away from them at a bus etc. In todays society where people try and screw you over all the time, how do I not know what they're hiding, or if a criminal has decided that this is a good "cover" while robbing me on a bus? I retain my right to be suspicious of them... i suppose its wrong but if I can't see your face it worries me (just as it would if they were wearing a closed motorcycle helmet into a bank etc)

In all honesty though it doesn't impact me at this time and I couldn't care less.. but I'll still cross the street tomorrow...

Edited April 30, 2010 by Vanessa&Tony

[Deb+Steve 13]

Ban Kiwis from Australia.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Ban Kiwis from Australia.

Fush and chups...

[Deb+Steve 13]

Fush and chups...

... you know, there was actually a couple (in NZ) who tried to name their twins ... Fush and Chups (sinc) ... google it!!

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Ban Kiwis from Australia.

just get rid of all your sheep.

[Deb+Steve 13]

just get rid of all your sheep.

Hey now, it's the Kiwis that love their sheep a bit too much ...

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Hey now, it's the Kiwis that love their sheep a bit too much ...

exactly - just trying to end that sex tourism thing

[Danno 1,228]

I am known to back any country which tries to save it's culture so in this regard, I support France as they see their affection with Diversity is a ticking time bomb.

In the USA, I don;t see how you say you like diversity and then want to stop people from expressing a legit form of it... all while they are hurting no one>?

Personally, I am way more offended at those parading on the street with their pants down and their azz hanging.... out than I am from a woman with too much clothing on.

I also chuckle at how Feminists are all for a -woman right to choose-

but this is one choice they just can't handle.

[Deb+Steve 13]

exactly - just trying to end that sex tourism thing

[besaangel 18]

- smoking in public. In my personal opinion you should only be allowed at home. I should not be subjected to it on the streets or in doorways etc. Not only is it disgusting but I am allergic. It's a very selfish habit

- swearing in public. I was ALWAYS taught to never use foul language but at the very least to mind my manners in front of the elderly and small children.

- slutty clothing... this is a matter of opinion for what constitutes "slutty" but excessive cleavage, shorts that show butt cheeks (such as Kylie Minogue in that one video clip) and "thongs" (you americans call them) with a miniskirt is my view of slutty

- PDA's weren't permitted back "in the day"

- a "movie kiss" was a closed-mouthed kiss. No skin shown

- divorce is VERY high as is underage pregnancy etc

This is why you my girl... there will always be something that someone does that somebody wont like. I hate people who smoke in public but there really sint anything i can do about it so if ya dont like the way they dress, then who gives a flying fig? Gosh maybe you smoke, fart or burp in public and they detest you for that so HEY... Life aint fair, deal with it.

[sandinista! 1,816]

Not necessarily as long as the terms of employment are made clear on the front end. I worked for a company that did not allow or tolerate any facial hair for customer facing personnel - or ear rings for male employees. There was a strict dress and appearance code that every applicant was made aware of and had to agree to in order to be considered for employment. Nothing illegal about it at all. Now, you can't hire people and tell them six months later that they'll have to shave. That's where you run into problems.

not necessarily, and definitely not under all circumstances. they can't go ahead and have illegal terms of employment, even if everyone previously had been a-ok with those illegal terms.

While there may be circumstances in which allowing a particular exception to an employer’s dress and grooming policy would pose an undue hardship, an employer’s reliance on the broad rubric of “image” to deny a requested religious accommodation may amount to relying on customer religious bias ( “customer preference”) in violation of Title VII. (of the civil rights act)

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html

Your employer may try to justify denying you the ability to wear your religious clothing at work based on concerns about offending or losing customers. However, customer preference is never a justification for a discriminatory practice. Refusing to hire someone because customers or co-workers may be “uncomfortable” with that person's religion or national origin is just as illegal as refusing to hire that person because of religion or national origin in the first place. http://www.workplacefairness.org/religion?agree=yes#10

abercrombie simply does not meet that burden.

[Pooky 3,784]

Go Belgium! Although, when you read closer, it does seem a little like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Belgian lawmakers pass burka ban

Belgium's lower house of parliament has voted for a law that would ban women from wearing the full Islamic face veil in public.

The law would ban any clothing that obscures the identity of the wearer in places like parks and on the street. No-one voted against it. The law now goes to the Senate, where it may face challenges over its wording, which may delay it. If passed, the ban would be the first move of its kind in Europe. Only around 30 women wear this kind of veil in Belgium, out of a Muslim population of around half a million.

The BBC's Dominic Hughes in Brussels says MPs backed the legislation on the grounds of security, to allow police to identify people. Other MPs said that the full face veil was a symbol of the oppression of women, our correspondent says.

Senate approval

Thursday's vote was almost unanimous with 134 MPs in support of the law and two abstentions. It is expected to pass through the Senate without being blocked, with initial reports saying it could come into law as early as June or July. But the Liberals and Christian Democrats - both represented in the Senate - say they will question the phrasing of the law, which could cause delays. It will also take longer to become law if elections are called, as parliament would have to be dissolved. The Belgium government collapsed last week.

The Muslim Executive of Belgium has criticised the move, saying it would lead to women who do wear the full veil to be trapped in their homes. Amnesty International said a ban would set a "dangerous precedent". In a statement, the human rights group said it would "violate the rights to freedom of expression and religion of those women who wear the burqa or niqab as an expression of their identity and beliefs".

The ban would be imposed in all buildings or grounds that are "meant for public use or to provide services", including streets, parks and sports grounds. Exceptions could be made for certain festivals. Those who break the law could face a fine of 15-25 euros (£13-£27) or a seven-day jail sentence.

Full Article

[Nagishkaw 510]

Hey now, it's the Kiwis that love their sheep a bit too much ...

[Peikko 1,575]

I can understand why Belgium want to go in this direction, but I am not sure that legal measures are the best way of going about it. I have to say that in regard to the whole modesty thing - the requirement to wear anything in particular in order to maintain modesty is completely stupid. Modesty has nothing to do with what one is or isn't wearing, it's one's attitude. To push the emphasis on wearing full covering in order to maintain male propriety is completely backward and that is the message that should be sent out to muslim communities rather than trying to legally mandate that they do not cover up completely.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

I really don't like woman who wear black sheets over their head and look like the walking death themselves. I don't like man who wear lipstick. I don't like how orthodox Jews dress. I don't like fat woman who wear tank tops. I don't like people who have bad teeth or smoke in public. I don't like so many people and so many things people do or not do.

Yet, who cares what I like or don't like?

What matters, and what makes America so great, is that for the first time in recorded history a nation was founded by the people for the people that embraces people from all corners of the world. A nation that put in writing that everybody is equal, no matter what race or gender they have or what religion they embrace.

You can argue that if you wear a tank top and hot pants in Saudia Arabia or Persia, that they'll throw you in jail. But, see, this is not Saudi Arabia or Iran, this is the great United States of America. We are different. We are more liberal and tolerant. At least we are supposed to be that. What that means is that for the extra freedom we enjoy in some ways, we have to grant others the same. It's one thing if somebody else does something to hurt you, but if it's just the looks of others you don't like, and it's not obscene in any way, you'll have to look in the other direction.

This is not a Christian nation, no matter what Sarah Palin thinks. This is a nation that gives total religious freedom and freedom to dress anyway they see fit.

I like that, even if I don't like something.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Just Bob