Ship of Fools: Sexist religious attire?

Thread: Sexist religious attire? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026062

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

The province of Québec in Canada is proposing a "charter of values", Link to CBC story, wherein the wearing of religious symbols and clothing will be banned for all government workers, details of the ban:Turbans, hijabs, kippas to face restrictions in province as part of 'Charter of Quebec Values'.

Continuing discussion and news about it in Canada indicates that they will or may let religious clothing be worn only if it applies equally to both men and women.

I think there is a case to be made that Islam, Sikhism, and perhaps other religions do have sexist religious clothing. I'm thinking turbans on men and burkas/hijabs on women.

1.
My first question is about the sensibility of banning religious clothing when it restricts or otherwise is applies to one gender only. Or is this merely a way around the more obvious idea of going after non-Christian religions?

2.
My second question is about the issue of government workers wearing things that mask their faces. The sensitivity that I've heard among my clientèle, neighbours, and friends is that they are concerned more about masked people, for whatever reason they are masked. I'm not aware of, for example, teachers or nurses wearing other than surgical masks in performance of their work locally, but perhaps it happens? Should people be allowed to be masked when they serve others in a government position or otherwise?

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Ces fous québécois.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
... Or is this merely a way around the more obvious idea of going after non-Christian religions?

Ding ding ding!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Ces fous québécois.

Genau.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Translations?

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Ces fous québécois.
Genau.

English, please! Damn intellectuals!

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Genau=exactly.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

This proposed legislation in Quebec seems to me and I grew up there as xenophobic. Indeed it may even be the first step to get immigrants to mainstream themselves into Quebec life.
I think this legislation is against the Canadian Charter of Rhights & Freedoms.
As to being sexist ? Maybe however I see it aimed at Orthodx Jew and their distinctive dress, and all Jews who wear the Yarmulka , and the Musilm & East Indian communities who wear everything from the hajib to just turbans and to the Christian community that wear a cross , or a habit. The Quebec government seems to want secularize life in Quebec . Yet in its legislative chamber it has a crucifix and Montreal has a well known
Cross on the Mountain it sits on.
I hope that this bill will fail . That all religous communites will be welcome in Quebec and indeed in all of Canada .

Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on :

The proposed legislation is not so much sexist as just generally bigoted. It's childish, ridiculous, and spiteful, and I too hope it fails.

I've seen some of the comments from supporters of this kind of legislation (including a couple of letters to a British newspaper regarding--horrors--the wearing of a religious symbol by a Sikh schoolgirl). What they claim is that the mere sight of any jewelry or clothing that has any religious significance amounts to bullying--that the wearer is trying to "force their beliefs down [my] throat." A really juvenile and paranoid statement!

What next? Do they want to build high walls around the Cathedral of Notre Dame? The Taj Mahal? Angkor Wat? So some atheist twit won't be offended by the sight of a religious building?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Genau=exactly.

Ces fous québéquois = those crazy Quebekistanis.

[ 11. September 2013, 03:25: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I keep seeing stores that either only sell clothes for one gender, or separate the clothes for each gender into different parts of the store.

It's sexist Western secular attire, I tell you, sexist!

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

Will they be making Mormons drop their dacks or lift their dresses to check for special religious underwear?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

How will that affect Salvation Army uniforms where men and women have different hats and where women will wear their hats all the time but men have to remove them indoors?

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I think there is a case to be made that Islam, Sikhism, and perhaps other religions do have sexist religious clothing. I'm thinking turbans on men and burkas/hijabs on women.

How does one define 'sexist' clothing here? [Paranoid]

(And Sikhism is strong on preaching equality between the sexes.)

In response generally to the Quebec proposal: how is this NOT the flip side of the tiresome 'modesty police' of Christian fundamentalism or the even more sinister 'modesty police' of Islamic fundamentalism (i.e. you can actually get arrested for infringing the rules of the latter). Because banning clothing worn by people of certain faiths just because you don't like it is a fundamentally intolerant and truly dangerous road to start going down, IMO. France did this and I think they made a mistake.

What else are the powers-that-be going to do, start banning Amish women from wearing their plain dresses and their little lacy head coverings? No, I didn't think so. But it would be OK to target Muslim, Sikh and Orthodox Jewish women over their 'modest' dress? Yikes. [Mad]

I will concede that I really don't like veils that mask the face - and yes, I do believe there is a sexist belief behind that. But. All the same. Banning Jews from wearing the kippur, banning Sikhs from wearing the turban ... whoah nellie, my alarm bells are ringing. [Ultra confused]

I hope this gets voted down. The civil rights people are clearly onto it, anyhow.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
The Quebec government seems to want secularize life in Quebec. Yet in its legislative chamber it has a crucifix and Montreal has a well known Cross on the Mountain it sits on.

I wonder if this isn't part of the reason for an anti-religious backlash, actually. Many Québecois are heartily sick of what they see as an oppressively Catholic culture.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

Do chasubles and stoles count as sexist clothing when worn by Catholics?

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
How will that affect Salvation Army uniforms where men and women have different hats and where women will wear their hats all the time but men have to remove them indoors?

If government workers are turning up to work in the uniform of an external organisation there is a much bigger problem going on. I would hope said workers in uniforms would get handed a cardboard box and their door pass confiscated regardless of whether there are different versions for men and women.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Reminds me of modern France.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
How will that affect Salvation Army uniforms where men and women have different hats and where women will wear their hats all the time but men have to remove them indoors?
If government workers are turning up to work in the uniform of an external organisation there is a much bigger problem going on. I would hope said workers in uniforms would get handed a cardboard box and their door pass confiscated regardless of whether there are different versions for men and women.

Oh sorry, I didn't realise this rule only applied to employees. Does it not apply to people dressed religious clothing in 'ordinary life' - as in going shopping, walking to the car and attending public worship?

[ 11. September 2013, 11:56: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
The Quebec government seems to want secularize life in Quebec. Yet in its legislative chamber it has a crucifix and Montreal has a well known Cross on the Mountain it sits on.
I wonder if this isn't part of the reason for an anti-religious backlash, actually. Many Québecois are heartily sick of what they see as an oppressively Catholic culture.

Maybe 30-40-50 years ago. Quebec culture is now thoroughly secular.

As I see the law actually has minimal effect on most Christians for whom wearing any kind of identifying clothing or jewellery is simply a matter of personal taste. Not so much for other religions.

It's an anti-immigrant measure thinly disguished as secularism.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Oh sorry, I didn't realise this rule only applied to employees. Does it not apply to people dressed religious clothing in 'ordinary life' - as in going shopping, walking to the car and attending public worship?

No.

It's a proposed regulation for government workers only, not an outright ban. I fully support government workers having an appropriate dress code, and for client-facing roles a uniform should be prescribed.

The first comment on the linked story gets it right:

quote:
Commenter "mulderx" writes:
some of these religious extremiests are confusing banning of religious icons at provicial places of employment with a million other things, no one is talking about taking bulldozers to thier places of worship and gunning them down in the streets

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I keep seeing stores that either only sell clothes for one gender, or separate the clothes for each gender into different parts of the store.

It's sexist Western secular attire, I tell you, sexist!

That was my reaction as well. I can't really imagine any situation in which it would be appropriate for the state to dictate how people should dress, except perhaps in requiring a certain level of culturally-dependent modesty (which in the Western world these days really only goes as far as saying that always cover their genitalia and buttocks and usually all or most of their torsos and at least part of their legs, except in certain circumstances where the don't even do that)

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
How does one define 'sexist' clothing here? (And Sikhism is strong on preaching equality between the sexes.)

One gender wears it, is required to wear it, or there is significant social pressure to do so. [/qb][/quote]

quote:
In response generally to the Quebec proposal: how is this NOT the flip side of the tiresome 'modesty police' of Christian fundamentalism or the even more sinister 'modesty police' of Islamic fundamentalism (i.e. you can actually get arrested for infringing the rules of the latter). Because banning clothing worn by people of certain faiths just because you don't like it is a fundamentally intolerant and truly dangerous road to start going down, IMO. France did this and I think they made a mistake.

What else are the powers-that-be going to do, start banning Amish women from wearing their plain dresses and their little lacy head coverings? No, I didn't think so. But it would be OK to target Muslim, Sikh and Orthodox Jewish women over their 'modest' dress? Yikes.

I will concede that I really don't like veils that mask the face - and yes, I do believe there is a sexist belief behind that. But. All the same. Banning Jews from wearing the kippur, banning Sikhs from wearing the turban ... whoah nellie, my alarm bells are ringing.

I hope this gets voted down. The civil rights people are clearly onto it, anyhow.

It applies to workers for gov't not all people everywhere. Though the receipt of gov't services while wearing a mask is not allowed, which seems to me to be an intrusion.

I'm thinking the ban on religious clothing maybe needs to be separated from wearing a face mask. There are limits to personal choice in a free and democratic society. Thus - wear what you want for clothing, but your face shall not be covered. Just thinking.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

I'm thinking the ban on religious clothing maybe needs to be separated from wearing a face mask. There are limits to personal choice in a free and democratic society. Thus - wear what you want for clothing, but your face shall not be covered. Just thinking.

Why is there a problem with covering your face if it doesn't stop you doing your job and you're not doing something criminal?

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

I guess because Orthodox Jewish women wear wigs and the men wear Western-style hats, they are exempt? Neither was mentioned in the linked article but both are "sexist" religious attire.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

The proposed legislation is unlikely to survive a court challenge. I doubt the PQ government would invoke the not withstanding clause to make these changes. There is no chance of the changes passing in the current minority legislature since the Liberals and CAQ have both come out against the plan. Many pundits are suggesting that the PQ is playing politics hoping to gain more support in the rural areas in order to achieve a majority government in the next election.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Call me a cynic, but I bet Orthodox Jews will get bothered less under this new rule, if it is enacted, because they aren't as scary as those brown-looking people, doncha know.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Call me a cynic, but I bet Orthodox Jews will get bothered less under this new rule, if it is enacted, because they aren't as scary as those brown-looking people, doncha know.

Oh definitely, don't think you need to be a cynic to think that!

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Maybe there's a difference from place to place, but it's usually the ultra-orthodox Jews who go in for that sort of dress, not the Orthodox.

I still think gendered attire is being confused with sexist ditto. I recently returned to the UK via Heathrow, where my papers were checked at immigration by a young woman wearing a hijab. A couple of desks down was a Sikh man (I assume) wearing a turban. Both were public servants doing their job. What possible grounds would I have for objecting to their dress?

Yes, there are issues about thinks like the burkha that can definitely be described as sexist, and there are also issues about face covering in certain circumstances. Those are separate issues.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It applies to workers for gov't not all people everywhere. Though the receipt of gov't services while wearing a mask is not allowed, which seems to me to be an intrusion.

I have a friend who works in the welfare services, she says the majority of their fraud cases start by noticing something odd with body language. Based on that I think it's an acceptable intrusion, so long as reasonable accommodation is made for people to request to be seen by a case worker of the same sex.

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Why is there a problem with covering your face if it doesn't stop you doing your job and you're not doing something criminal?

It's not culturally appropriate. In the Western world if you're in a client-facing or public-facing job it's generally expected that you look your client in the eye and leave your body language open to be read.

Being able to read body language is especially important for people who are getting fobbed off by paper pushers in the public sector. When I had some issues with Australia Post a few months ago it was quite obvious that the person I was talking to had no interest in taking ownership of the issue and getting it sorted out. If that woman's body language was hidden and the expression in her voice muffled by a niqab I possibly wouldn't have picked up that she was interested only in getting me out the door so I became somebody else's problem.

The probably small number of public sector workers affected could be accommodated by transferring them to back office positions as a compromise that keeps them employed while also securing appropriate service for clients.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

It seems very silly to ban all religious attire - I could see the reasoning behind not allowing items that cover the face, but kippot or turbans or hijab shouldn't be a problem. Many jobs with uniforms have incorporated religious clothing into their uniform regulations - so there are regulation turbans, regulation hijab etc. Most school uniforms in the UK do the same with no problem.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Why is there a problem with covering your face if it doesn't stop you doing your job and you're not doing something criminal?
It's not culturally appropriate. In the Western world if you're in a client-facing or public-facing job it's generally expected that you look your client in the eye and leave your body language open to be read.

That wouldn't rule out, say, a Spiderman outfit with eyeholes. (And they do say "Dress for the job you want, not the one you've got"....)

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by Jade Constable
It seems very silly to ban all religious attire - I could see the reasoning behind not allowing items that cover the face, but kippot or turbans or hijab shouldn't be a problem. Many jobs with uniforms have incorporated religious clothing into their uniform regulations - so there are regulation turbans, regulation hijab etc. Most school uniforms in the UK do the same with no problem.

Hijab, niqub, burqa, etc - none of these are "religious" attire, they are cultural items. That the culture that has invented them is rooted in Islam is beside the point, there is no religious origin to any of them.

And the reason why people get so exercised by the niqab and burka is that they prevent proper face-to-face interaction.

To say that a niqab (or spiderman outfit) allows one to see the wearer's eyes may be true, but facial expression cannot be gauged from a letter-box slit that only shows the eyes.

Whether or not moslem women choose to wear the niqab or burqa of their own freewill is immaterial: the wearing of such items of clothing in a society where the historic culture is for men and women to move about unveiled is inappropriate and, in the final analysis, culturally and socially divisive.

I was disappointed to read today that the judge in the case of the female defendant who refused to unveil had allowed her to remove her veil in front of a female court officer (who then swore to the woman's identity) but then to put it back before she went into court.

Having sat on a jury, I can say that part of weighing evidence and reaching a decision on the guilt or otherwise of a defendant can be by observing their demeanour - this cannot be done if the defendant is veiled.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Surely if a garment has religious meaning to a millions and millions of people it can safely be called religious attire!

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
part of weighing evidence and reaching a decision on the guilt or otherwise of a defendant can be by observing their demeanour - this cannot be done if the defendant is veiled.

Can't speak for being on a jury. But having been involved in job interviewing, have to admit I'm pretty skeptical of the neutrality of any such assessment...

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Surely if a garment has religious meaning to a millions and millions of people it can safely be called religious attire!

So does that mean that the millions of Muslim women who do not believe that their faith requires them to cover their hair are wrong?
Or are both groups right? In which case, how can any third party decide whether the hijab is a religious requirement or a part of Arab culture that has become associated with Islam?
Personally, I would much rather a woman who believes she should wear a hijab be allowed to work while doing so than stay at home.

I find it hard to imagine anyone getting upset about turbans [Confused]

but would like to know if they are required; I know that Sikhs must not cut their hair, but is the turban just the traditional way for men to keep their long hair out of the way or is it actually specified?

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
So does that mean that the millions of Muslim women who do not believe that their faith requires them to cover their hair are wrong?

Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity. There are Christians whose religious views prohibit alcohol, and there are those who don't. Indeed there are Christians whose religious beliefs and practices call for specific clothing, e.g., the Amish, or in the case of underwear only, the Mormons. And there are many more Christians for whom this is not the case.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I've witnessed PLENTY of evidence being given without the witness' demeanour being visible. On the telephone. The great majority of doctors giving medical evidence, for example, did not appear at the tribunal. We called them on the phone (specifically I called them, it was one of my tasks) and they were broadcast on the speakers.

In 2 years, there was only one occasion where a tribunal member found this unsatisfactory. That one single witness was required to attend in person.

So excuse me if I don't buy the argument that you need to see someone's face. Most of the time you don't.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've witnessed PLENTY of evidence being given without the witness' demeanour being visible. On the telephone. The great majority of doctors giving medical evidence, for example, did not appear at the tribunal. We called them on the phone (specifically I called them, it was one of my tasks) and they were broadcast on the speakers.

In 2 years, there was only one occasion where a tribunal member found this unsatisfactory. That one single witness was required to attend in person.

So excuse me if I don't buy the argument that you need to see someone's face. Most of the time you don't.

You must have different rules of evidence and of the courts. Never in a trial, civil or criminal here have I been called as an expert witness and not had to attend in person (that's about 120 times) at two levels of court, provincial and the next level up, Queen's Bench. They do motions, pleas and remands by video conference, but nothing else. I'm not a lawyer, so I can only talk of my witness experiences.

I have felt that they don't want to open this door because then people could assert their right to plead not guilty to $40 parking tickets and not have to spend more money missing work and other expenses. People just pay them as issued as things stand.

Every child abuse trial has to hear evidence about the necessity for a blocking screen additionally. One would have thought this was automatic, but it isn't here. I'm not aware of masked people due to their religion testifying locally. I suspect many arguments about it.

I found this link which states this:

quote:
Last fall, an Ontario court judge created controversy when he decided a woman did not have the right to wear a veil when testifying in a sexual assault case. And in 2007, a Quebec elections official ruled that women should be required to remove their veils to vote.

And this one from the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC)
which states:

quote:
Burka has no place in Canada....An increasing number of women in Canada are being forced by husbands to wear what she calls a loose robe and veil ... setting them apart from other Canadian women ... (and) have to cover your face or have to wear a virtual tent wherever you go.... The body coverings are an innovation of Saudi Arabia's extreme Wahhabi sect....

So I'm leaning toward the idea that people should wear what they want, but obscuring one's identity may be reasonably prohibitted in some contexts. Less official example: if a sign on a store door says "no hoodies", meaning young people must not wear hoods up, then face masks might also fall under this prohibition. If this is merely a cultural fashion thing, which I think it is given statements from the MCC as quoted.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Surely if a garment has religious meaning to a millions and millions of people it can safely be called religious attire!
So does that mean that the millions of Muslim women who do not believe that their faith requires them to cover their hair are wrong?

Why on earth would it need to mean that? Many Christians find cross necklaces important religious symbols, but I find them utterly meaningless to me. Doesn't meant they're not religious symbols. They just aren't religious symbols that help me find God.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
You must have different rules of evidence and of the courts.

Well, without going into the arcane and unique mysteries of the administrative law system here, I worked for a tribunal rather than a court, and I suspect that a court would probably insist on attendance.

My point, though, is that my own experience has indicated that it's not inherently necessary to see someone to assess their 'demeanour'. The whole reason that one witness was required to attend in person was because the tribunal member (and indeed myself as well) had doubts about him from the phone. THEN we wanted to see him. But that was after he was being assessed aurally and we thought something was up.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

My point, though, is that my own experience has indicated that it's not inherently necessary to see someone to assess their 'demeanour'. The whole reason that one witness was required to attend in person was because the tribunal member (and indeed myself as well) had doubts about him from the phone. THEN we wanted to see him. But that was after he was being assessed aurally and we thought something was up.

Demeanour is a lazy judge's word used to explain the preference for the evidence for one over another witness, and is an attempt to minimise the chances of a decision being overruled on appeal. A conscientious judge will explain the choice by reference to the evidence as a whole, how it inter-relates, and how it is supported by external matters, such as written records made at the relevant time. That is a much harder task, but one which gives a more satisfactory answer to a losing party.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Sorry for a double post, but more and more frequently evidence in civil proceedings here, particularly by experts, is being given either on telephone or via video-link. I can't say how criminal matters proceed, except that video-links are often used for complainants in cases of child sexual assault.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Surely if a garment has religious meaning to a millions and millions of people it can safely be called religious attire!
So does that mean that the millions of Muslim women who do not believe that their faith requires them to cover their hair are wrong?
Why on earth would it need to mean that? Many Christians find cross necklaces important religious symbols, but I find them utterly meaningless to me. Doesn't meant they're not religious symbols. They just aren't religious symbols that help me find God.

As we discovered this year concerning Sundays, personal importance seems to count for naught in the courts.

Face coverings, as those forced on women in cultures governed by Islam, are a highly sexist cultural thing and shouldn't be allowed (and shame on yet another judge in the UK for being ignorant) in the Western world, no matter how much people claim that to not allow them is oppressive...

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I am shocked at the number of shippies who see allowing people to be veiled as liberal or culturally neutral.

Where do you draw the line in your acceptance of "cultural" labels that permit behaviour that is unacceptable in the wider population: wife-beating? forced marriage? starvation and imprisonment of children (male and female) who try to refuse an arranged marriage? child abuse (sexual and non-sexual) by religious teachers? removal of female relatives from compulsory education? FGM?

The UK is a European country and, as such, it is the cultural norm for men and women to be seen as equal before the law, for women to be independent from the age of 18, for physical harm to be a criminal offence, etc. It is not now, nor has it been for at least six hundred years, the norm for people to go about in public veiled as a matter of course.

Allowing one section of society to flout societal norms is not liberal: rather, it frequently disguises an attitude of "so long as they keep their nasty habits to themselves we don't care" and that can (and does) condemn women and children to harm and misery. Going further and allowing a cultural group to flout the law of the land is divisive, dangerous and misguided.

The so-called liberalism of those who would allow Sharia, veil wearing, etc is not seen as anything other than spinelessness by many moslems and is used by some as evidence of the lack of moral fibre and values of the host culture.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Surely if a garment has religious meaning to a millions and millions of people it can safely be called religious attire!
So does that mean that the millions of Muslim women who do not believe that their faith requires them to cover their hair are wrong?
Why on earth would it need to mean that? Many Christians find cross necklaces important religious symbols, but I find them utterly meaningless to me. Doesn't meant they're not religious symbols. They just aren't religious symbols that help me find God.

Apologies - I was posting when too tired to think straight and you are quite right. Just because something is regarded as religious does not necessarily make it compulsory.

I do feel that is not an area that the the law should be used to regulate, if the attire has no impact on the performance of a person's job.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I am shocked at the number of shippies who see allowing people to be veiled as liberal or culturally neutral.

Where do you draw the line in your acceptance of "cultural" labels that permit behaviour that is unacceptable in the wider population: wife-beating? forced marriage? starvation and imprisonment of children (male and female) who try to refuse an arranged marriage? child abuse (sexual and non-sexual) by religious teachers? removal of female relatives from compulsory education? FGM?

The UK is a European country and, as such, it is the cultural norm for men and women to be seen as equal before the law, for women to be independent from the age of 18, for physical harm to be a criminal offence, etc. It is not now, nor has it been for at least six hundred years, the norm for people to go about in public veiled as a matter of course.

Allowing one section of society to flout societal norms is not liberal: rather, it frequently disguises an attitude of "so long as they keep their nasty habits to themselves we don't care" and that can (and does) condemn women and children to harm and misery. Going further and allowing a cultural group to flout the law of the land is divisive, dangerous and misguided.

The so-called liberalism of those who would allow Sharia, veil wearing, etc is not seen as anything other than spinelessness by many moslems and is used by some as evidence of the lack of moral fibre and values of the host culture.

And I am rather startled by the way you appear to equate wearing a niqab with being beaten. No-one is above the law and different cultural norms should not be used as a defence. But neither should the law be changed to make minority cultural norms illegal if they do not harm anyone.

The fact that some Muslims do not understand the culture they live in is not, IMHO, a good reason to change it.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Joanna, completely agreed then.

L'Organist, many of us are not happy with people being made to wear burqas. But that doesn't mean making them or other people who want to cover stay home is a good alternative. And that is what will happen if they can't cover, particularly to the women who's males give them no choice.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

L'organist wrote:

quote:
Allowing one section of society to flout societal norms is not liberal

Erm - isn't that what "liberal" actually means? You know - letting people get on with stuff? If you turn the concept of liberal in liberal society on its head then you just invent a new authoritarianism.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Allowing one section of society to flout societal norms is not liberal: rather, it frequently disguises an attitude of "so long as they keep their nasty habits to themselves we don't care" and that can (and does) condemn women and children to harm and misery. Going further and allowing a cultural group to flout the law of the land is divisive, dangerous and misguided.

If civil society wants to enforce societal norms, I think that's best done by civil society without government intervention. Some things are better left to the wider culture than to the government. This is one of them. One does not want to give the government precedent to enforce norms.
Frankly, some societal norms should be flouted (see thread about rape culture) and most are indifferent. And it really shouldn't be government business to distinguish except in cases where there's an immediate threat of clear harm.

[ 14. September 2013, 14:02: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

JoannaP
I did not say that wearing a niqab, either voluntarily or through coercion, means that someone in being beaten.

Ron Bacardi
If all the people who wear burqas, etc are doing so voluntarily then that is one thing - but you and I know that there are situations where women are not allowed choice. And I don't think it is liberal to allow some men to bully and coerce their women as a norm.

As for "allowing" civil society to enforce societal norms, I agree that in a perfect world this would not be something where government or law should be involved: but we have yet to achieve that perfection and while there is a section of society that sees (and treats) its women as chattels then maybe it is up to the rest of us to not only say that this is not acceptable in 21st century Britain but also to take action to ensure that, as far as possible, women in ALL sections of society are allowed to make their own choices without fear of reprisal. I would have thought there have been enough cases of "honour" crime in the last few years for it to be abundantly clear that where are people who just will not accept that women have the right to freedom of thought, movement and, ultimately, the right to life itself.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

L'organist wrote:

quote:
If all the people who wear burqas, etc are doing so voluntarily then that is one thing - but you and I know that there are situations where women are not allowed choice. And I don't think it is liberal to allow some men to bully and coerce their women as a norm.

Neither do I. But what you actually said in your previous post was -

quote:
I am shocked at the number of shippies who see allowing people to be veiled as liberal or culturally neutral.

And that was it - no qualification. Perhaps you intended the phrase "to be veiled" to mean having the veil imposed on you, but that's not how I read it, and it looks like nobody else did either.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0