Beakersful

'Control' comes up, and an interesting defence from some of the youth of those creating and holding laws keeping women down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAusnHhRyuo

In the West it's not as easy to say we are waiting for old men in power to die so that things may change with regard to women's rights. Far too many in the next generation come up with the same patriarchal/chauvenistic principles. Beating/harassing women isn't okay nowadays is often excused by stating that if women want to be treated like men, then they can take the odd punch too.

britexpat76

What was that Video? A load of Pricks in white following some Ninja's?

Beakersful

Not 100% sure, but from what I have read it sounds like a lynch mob going after a group of women who complained about the behaviour of those who are supposed to be above carrying out poor actions. Sorry to be so vague. There's a crapload of vids out there in arabic that we don't normally find. Ones like this are the tip of the iceberg.

Geordie George

Personally, I don't see Facebook as any worse or better than any other Internet medium for expressing opinion. You tend to get the same cut and thrust of argument there as any forum: the OP, those who agree, those who disagree and those who just want everyone to get along and be friends.

I don't see that the whole argument becomes invalid when articulated by a bunch of numpties. There are, obviously, going to be those who can string a sentence together who might hold the same opinion. What matters is the reason that they hold such an opinion. Is it because they believe that the burqa could present a security threat, for example, and shouldn't be allowed in banks like motorbike helmets? Is it because they think that the burqa impacts pragmatics and makes communication difficult? Or is it because they think British/English culture is somehow (how?) being undermined by a minority who choose to express religious (cultural) beliefs in the way they dress? Because if it's the latter, why should one religious symbol be banned but not another? God knows you can't trust a nun, covering up the way they do.

Yoohoo

Burka wearers are not only making a statement about themselves and their beliefs. They are, if you listen to the reasons for why they do what they do, making a statement about other women (and men when you think about it) as well.

Logic?

"I wear this burka because my religion states that all women should do so in order to avoid becoming the reason a man feels temptation and lust". => "If you don't wear burka you will be tempting all men including mine - beeatch!".

"I wear this burka because my culture believes that doing so allows me to avoid accusations of being a harlot" => "You don't wear a burka therefore you could very well be a harlot"

"I wear this burka because my incredible beauty drives men wild." => "You don't wear a burka, so you must be as ugly as sin". (OK, this one is pretty silly, but so is thinking you're way too beautiful for the rest of the world to cope with looking at you!)

jam25mack

"I wear a burka because my man told me I have to, and I wouldn't dare disobey him"

"I wear a burka because I am secretly a ninja"

At the end of the day, you only need to take a flight from Saudi / Kuwait etc to Dubai to see all the ladies running to the toilets to disrobe from their burkas and put their skinny jeans and crop tops on. The majority obviously wouldn't wear one by choice.

My personal favorite are the ones with the beak, they look like a chicken!

Inselaffen

remember going to a dodgy club in Cairo. Some famous Saudi singe was going to perform. a group a young Saudi ladies arrived head to toe in black. They soon ditched the Burkhas to reveal skimpy clothing and every one of them ended up on stage during his performance.

Yoohoo

I think you're confusing the abaya and shayla with the burka. Burka wearers, particularly those who live in the West, tend not to ditch them - even at border crossings. Women in Saudi who wear abayas and shaylas, on the other hand, wear them because they have to!

Any cursory study of enforced piety uncovers a huge vein of seeming hypocrisy - although I like to think repudiation of unthinking law enforcement the natural response of any intelligent being.

I know a woman who lived in Jeddah for a while, and not once was she told to put her shayla over her hair by a man. She was told to do so, very gently, at least twice a week by women. Women foist these rules on other women far more frequently than men.

jam25mack

Possibly. Female religious dress has never been my strong point....

Norm_uk

It could be something as simply as seeing the Burkha (and we are specifically talking about near total face covering not the hair, so nuns are not comparable) as a symbol of a totalitarian belief that is as much political and it is religious and cultural. It could be seen as rubbishing the efforts we have made in levelling the playing field between men and women over the last 100 years.

It could also be simply that we don't like it anymore than they like seeing our lasses wearing strapless dresses in malls around the GCC...we are told to respect their customs so for some they see it as quite reasonable for them to respect ours.

I understand this position but supporting a ban on the Burkha will be for security and communication reasons first and foremost. There is no requirement in Islam for a woman to cover her face in public - only for women to dress modestly.

N.

Norm_uk

A kind of Stockholm Syndrome - you see this in many cultures and religions where women are put in specific roles.

I recall the very old fashioned church my father used to attend - the older ladies would often scold younger girls who didn't cover their hair during service (a biblical commandment along with women not being allowed to teach men or lead prayers!) - when you genuinely believe something is from god you tend to want people you care about to follow it too.

With organised religious faith in decline I do feel many people really have a limited understanding of the religious mind because they have not experienced faith - perhaps this is why we are quick to excuse things others do that we would not deem acceptable among our own as simple 'cultural differences'.

N.

jam25mack

Or the 'if I have to do then so the ***** should you attitude!

Norm_uk

In all honesty about 50% of both reasons. It annoys me to see areas of the UK looking like foreign ghettos (visit parts of Luton and Tower Hamlets away from the comfortable white middle class areas and you'll understand) but my personal feelings are not a reason to ban anything of course. Sentiment driven policy is rarely beneficial for anything other than sentiment.

UK Law isn't the sum of UK culture, history and tradition. I can wear an SS Uniform and walk down the high street - it would be legal but it would be a slap in the face to many people who fought those monsters and to the ideals of our nation. But as stated above, that alone wouldn't be reason to ban it. Other reasons already exist to justify a ban based on reason that happen to also align with more cultural and nationalist sentiment.

Most of what you call immigration was actually invasion and we have seen no immigration or invasion on the scale we have seen in the last 50 years.

Claiming that we have a mongrel culture doesn't really mean anything since all culture is mongrel. Culture is also not the same thing as ethnicity or race. China, Japan and Korea have adopted loads of Western cultural ideas but haven't seen the need to allow literally millions of Westerners to come to their country, give them passports and treat them as they would their own, and pander to them and fine and jail their own people when they say it might be time to cut back or ask them to at least learn the local language.

Most migration to Britain historically has been small scale. Even the so-called Saxon invasions were probably more cultural take overs in the power vaccum left by a retreating Rome rather than population replacement . If you care to look it up you will find most white Britons share the same DNA as people who lived in the British Isles in the Stone Ages. That makes them more native than Turks in Turkey, Moari's in New Zealand and Arabs in Egypt. Of course race alone isn't a good basis for things. I think British and Western culture and it's core values are worth protecting because they are literally among the best on the planet.

The argument that because we like to adopt ideas and food from around the world means we have to accept mass immigration is very silly. History shows unbridled immigration is usually bad for the natives, particularly when the incoming culture is very different from the local one. I don't want to go the way of the Copt in Egypt because some people wish to commit suicide for our way of life because it's less of a stigma than being accused of racism. I don't want to ban all immigrants and close the doors either. I want to see sensible, limited immigration with a strong assimilation policy based on incoming people being made to adopt local custom and traditions (the reason Britain is such a great place to move to is precisely because of British culture so if people don't like aspects of it they shouldn't be given passports and the rights of British citizenship) - how that would take place is another debate however.

N.

flares

It's a version of 'Wilding'...big amongst 1980s black guys in Central Park, NYC.

redShark

The two opposite extremes of human behaviors. No other species in the world exhibits such a behavioral diversity