Quote:
Originally Posted by TuskegeeBen
If you get to know them they will take you back to their desert palace for a spot of hawking and let you taste the local delicacies.
:smileylaughing:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuskegeeBen
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuskegeeBen
If you get to know them they will take you back to their desert palace for a spot of hawking and let you taste the local delicacies.
:smileylaughing:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuskegeeBen
If the rest of the world, came anywhere near to being like any Scandinavian country, then what a wonderfully imperfect world, our world would be.:chitown:Quote:
Originally Posted by HuangLao
Excellent perspective. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKkin
Your [et al] perceived backward Eurocentric perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuskegeeBen
Illusion isn't just for breakfast.
I think more people should wear them.
Opinion piece ...
Group-think produces suboptimal outcomes
Stigmatising Muslim women — who are likely already burdened by discrimination — will only be counterproductive.
It is likely to push Muslim women out of vocations they are most likely to pursue — stymieing their career choices and reinforcing disempowerment.
A woman who has to choose between going to work or wearing her burka might choose the latter. Or worse, have that choice made for her by others.
The ban also deprives women of financial independence and confidence — both are essential for empowerment.Research shows that group-think and homogeneity produce suboptimal outcomes compared to decisions that incorporate diversity.
Finally, prejudice and exclusion on spurious claims about "values", neutrality, and assimilation deprive societies of the benefits from incorporating the full range of talent within it.
Why not seek to promote Danish values through education and other means rather than through criminalisation?
If women are incentivised to voluntarily shed the burka and engage actively in the public domain, European societies will benefit from their talents.
That's surely better than pushing them underground.
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2018/06/1258.jpg
Dr Sandeep Gopalan (on left) is the pro vice-chancellor for academic innovation at Deakin University and a professor of law.
Denmark's burka ban will send Muslim women further underground - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Also ... »ÃЪÒÊÑÁ¾Ñ¹¸ì ¤³Ð¹ÔµÔÈÒʵÃì ÁËÒÇÔ·ÂÒÅѹàÃÈÇÃ
...agree: if Muslim immigrants aren't happy with facial freedom, they should consider going elsewhere...Danes have no need to accommodate this particular religious requirement merely to suit new arrivals...it's up to newcomers to adjust to their new culture...or flounce...Quote:
Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton
One would have hoped that by now the ABC and Dr Sandeep Gopalan actually knew the difference between the burka and other forms of face veil.Quote:
Originally Posted by David48atTD
https://teakdoor.com/attachments/worl...ka-niqab-hijab
None of these dresses are suitable for living in a western country like Denmark, they do not help integration but separateness and difference. To be in favour of letting oppressed bullied women wear what their husbands and imams want is like being in favour of slaves wearing chains. If they want to dress like this they should go back to the shite holes they ran away from.
Could solve part of the problem if fingerprint ID ever catches on.
...authorities would suddenly find Muslim wives with missing finger tips...Quote:
Originally Posted by jabir
In what way is their choice of dress unsuitable, in your opinion? Too see-through, revealing their private parts, too waterproof, too hot in the winter months ........Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfly94
I suppose all the other ladies wear the same quality, same style than? None buying the latest fashion from Haute couture houses ........Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfly94
you mean like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfly94
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=14238&stc=1
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=14239&stc=1
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=14240&stc=1
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=14241&stc=1
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=14242&stc=1
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=14243&stc=1
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=14244&stc=1
Is this an exmple of chains you presumably consider acceptabl?
Or maybe this:
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=14245&stc=1
Were there no non Christians, if that is the majority religion, prior to ameristan and others turning their former country into a war zone and bombing it back to the stone-age. Forcing the citizens to run away for their and families safety?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonfly94
:fingersx: You really must not refer to yourself ^, in such a derogatory, third person manner, sir! :cool2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Norton
I think it's outrageous that women should be forced to remove their veil. Only the good looking ones should have to remove their veil. The ugly ones can keep it on. IMHO of course. I'll volunteer as veil inspector as it would be a job requiring the utmost tact and subtlety. Two qualities I am well known for........ Sorry darling you have to remove the veil. Not you, FFS keep it on you ugly bitch.
You jest but that actually highlights something that has always bemused me about religion and the Abrahmic religions in particular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Cow
They all have solid elements of misogyny built into them where the woman is the property of and subservient to the man but if you're going to go down that route then why not at least make it worthwhile.
Why make them cover-up in unappealing clothing. Why not make all the women where short skirts or bikinis or something (the hot ones at least :D).
...Masai women are good examples...except for the ones over 18 with 6 kids...nature's cruelty on display...Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
Old Gulf War joke:Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
A reporter in Kuwait before Saddam invaded noticed how the men walked in the front with the women sheepishly following behind.
After the liberation, he return to Kuwait City to see all the men at the back and the men leading the way.
"This is amazing", he said to the men, "you are now treating women as equals. Why?"
To which one of them replied "Landmines".
First woman fined under Denmark's new veil ban laws after shopping centre scuffle
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=18060&stc=1
The Government said the law is not aimed at any religion.
A 28-year-old woman wearing a face veil has become the first person in Denmark to be fined for violating a new law
banning such garments in public places.
Key points:
- Police were called to a shopping centre to respond to two women involved in a scuffle
- One of the women was charged with violating the full-face veil law
- Both women were charged with violating the peace
Danish news agency Ritzau reported police were called to a shopping centre in Horsholm, a city of 46,000 close to Copenhagen,
to confront a woman wearing a niqab garment covering her face.
The woman had been involved in a scuffle with another woman who had tried to tear her niqab off, police duty officer David Borchersen told Ritzau.
"During the fight her niqab came off, but by the time we arrived she had put it back on again," Mr Borchersen said.
Police reviewed CCTV footage to determine whether the second woman had intentionally pulled off the veil, and believed it was incidental to the fight.
The woman was fined 1,000 Danish kroner ($210) and was asked to either remove the veil or leave the premises. She opted to leave.
Both women were also charged with violating the peace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrille
And bacon.
There is a significant industry in Islamic female beauty. Even though they have so little to show, especially in hard line sharia regions. They still like make the most of what they’ve got. Even hair styling, manicure/pedicure and make up is very popular with many Muslim women.
Would now be a good time to mention Indonesia? Most women wear head scarves but almost none wear a veil. So veil has nothing to do with religion. It is a tribal custom.
...true: a fact which may suggest that tribal customs are stronger than religion when it comes to oppressing women...Quote:
Originally Posted by VocalNeal
I’m pretty sure their religion requires certain parts of the body to be covered for Muslim women. It depends which brand of the faith they are required to follow.
Its still subjugation by gender, and not to my personal taste.
Having lived in a moderate Muslim area of Indonesia, I can say that the observation is tolerated and adapted to suit local custom.
I may be wrong about religious requirements as opposed to tribal standards, but it still doesn’t sit well, especially if it’s used to demonise some decent folk of my acquaintance.
It doesn't, it requires them to "dress modestly". Of course some beardy twat has decided that means they have to dress like a fucking penguin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Switch
There was an hilarious phone in on LBC Radio on this topic last night. Some mussie phoned in to tell some shit story his grandad told him that everything beautiful is hidden, "Gold is hidden in gold mines, diamonds in diamond mines", etc., and this is why women are covered up.
Until the host asked him why all the Arabs go strutting around Kensington in their Lambos and Ferraris and proceeded to press him further, at which point he fell to bits and blurted it out that it was because "men can't control themselves".
The host did everything but say "Well we fucking can, it's you simians that can't", but at least the boy got to the truth:
All of this was originally done to stop simians from raping women.
Will they force also the turists to comply with the law?Quote:
Originally Posted by David48atTD
Why wouldn't they? It's the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Klondyke
Then they will not come...
This is a well argued piece imo. Are we really supposed to believe that Boris Johnson, for example, could actually give a shit about the clothing choices of Muslim women?
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...muslim-problemQuote:
It is helpful at this point to pause for a moment and explain the role the burqa plays now in political discourse. It is now merely a device, a symbol for people to appear muscular or to telegraph, as it were, a message. The issue of the burqa itself, its merits, demerits, whether it is worn by choice or through coercion, is now meaningless. No one seems to gives a damn what women who wear burqas want or don’t want, and no one seems to be interested in trying to figure out how many women actually do wear the burqa in any given country that is obsessed with it. Burqa has been used as a code – for Muslims, brown people, all the others who want to dictate their ways onto the helpless and authentic people.
islamophobes go 'round and 'round...
https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...il-ban/566630/Quote:
Limitations on wearing face veils in public have already been enacted in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, and Austria. They’ve been debated as far as Australia and the Canadian province of Quebec. Despite regional differences, a similar pattern of events has recurred in some of the countries. Although not every element of the pattern has appeared in every country, France, Quebec, and Austria, for instance, have followed a progression that goes roughly like this:
First, politicians in a country propose banning the face veil, which is worn by a small number of Muslim women and reflects one interpretation of the Quran’s injunction to “cover and be modest.” They argue that a ban will promote integration, or public safety, or that wearing a veil is inconsistent with national values like gender equality. Pundits and lawmakers loudly debate the policy, and the argument rages in the press. A few propose legal challenges. Eventually, the ban is passed into law.
Then, Muslims protest in the streets together with non-Muslims, some of whom wear veils in solidarity. Then comes yet another round of loud debate, amplified across the media. With time, reports indicate that discrimination against Muslims is rising in the country. Many Muslim women begin to hold more tightly to their religious identity, and some who didn’t wear the veil before the ban now start wearing it as an act of protest. Some others opt to stay home, though it’s impossible to say how widespread the phenomenon is.
If the ban was truly meant to promote gender equality, it appears to backfire. And yet, a few months later, another country enacts its own ban, and the whole process happens all over again.
What a shame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Klondyke
Dress modestly is interpreted differently by different sects. It’s still a requirement, at least within that particular society.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Even if it’s morally repugnant and morally wrong, the local law is adapted by men to suit their own ends.
The whole covering-up-everything shit is a sign or real religious extremism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Switch
For the people that apply these absurd rules it's not about the Quran, it's about them exercising their power the little fucking hitlers.
Denmark has got it wrong. Yes, the burka is oppressive and ridiculous – but that's still no reason to ban it
BORIS JOHNSON
Ah Denmark, what a country. If any society breathes the spirit of liberty, this is it.
It was only a few weeks ago that I was in Copenhagen for some international conference, and as ever I rose early and went for a run. As I passed through some yuppie zone of warehouse conversions and posh restaurants I saw to my amazement that the Danes had also got up early for exercise – and they were diving stark naked into the bracing waters of the harbour. And I thought to myself – that’s the Danes for you; that’s the spirit of Viking individualism.
Read more:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...iculous-still/
Boris Johnson says Muslims wearing burkas 'look like LETTER BOXES’ sparking fury
BORIS Johnson has been slammed after saying Muslim women wearing burkas “look like letter boxes”.
The ex-foreign secretary also described burkas as “absolutely ridiculous” and said their wearers looked like “bank robbers”.
Johnson came out against calls for a ban on the face-covering veils in public places – but compared their wearers to rebellious teenagers.
His comments, in response to the introduction of a burka ban in Denmark, sparked an angry response from Muslim organisations and MPs who accused him of stoking Islamophobia for political gain.
Denmark last week followed France, Germany, Austria and Belgium in banning face-covering garments like the burka and niqab in public places.
Johnson said he felt "fully entitled" to expect women to remove face coverings when talking to him at his MP's surgery, and said schools and universities should be able to take the same approach if a student "turns up ... looking like a bank robber”, writing for the Daily Telegraph.
"If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you," he wrote.
"If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree – and I would add that I can find no scriptural authority for the practice in the Koran.
"I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes."
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2018/08/1199.jpg
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/pol...es-bank-robber
Cancelled
Ben, don't be like that ... I'm just the OP :aus:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuskegeeBen
And then there are countries sailing in the opposite direction ...
---
Malaysia under fire over plan to control what women wear to work
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=18262&stc=1
Covering up is an "obligation" under Islam, say religious groups pushing for dress restrictions
The Malaysian Government's plan to introduce a dress code for Muslim women in the workplace has sparked a backlash from women's
rights groups, which accuse officials of acting like "fashion police".
Key points:
- Government wants to extend dress code for women to private sector
- Islamic groups complain about flight attendant and hotel worker outfits
- Women's groups have criticised the move as "dehumanising"
Women in the Muslim-majority country, which has a large population of ethnic and religious minorities, have been barred from government offices
in the past for attire that officials deemed as indecent, such as skirts or shorts.
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=18263&stc=1
Women in the public service already have dress regulations, the new rules would extend these to the private sector.
Those who work in the civil service already have to follow regulations that typically prohibit women from wearing sleeveless tops or
skirts above knee level.
But the Government has now said it is in the final stage of drawing up guidelines for Muslim women in the private sector, which will
comply with Islamic principles.
No details have been made public, but Malaysian women's rights groups condemned the dress code.
Here Here! It's about time. Cant have Women thinking and deciding things for themselves, or next thing they will be expecting to control their own lives. Whatever next!
FOCH
France's ban on full-face Islamic veils violates human rights, UN panel says :dunno:
https://teakdoor.com/attachment.php?a...id=21780&stc=1
Anyone wearing a full-face veil in public in France is liable to a fine of $240.
The UN Human Rights Committee says France's ban on the niqab, the full-face Islamic veil, is a violation of human rights and has called on it to review the legislation.
Key points:
- The committee said the ban could lead to women being confined at home
- France said the law was necessary and respected religious freedom
- Countries are not required to implement decisions from the rights panel
France had failed to make the case for its ban, the committee said, and gave Paris 180 days to report back to say what actions it had taken.
Implementation of its decisions is not mandatory, but under an optional protocol of the treaty, France has an international legal obligation to comply "in good faith".The panel of 18 independent experts oversees compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
"The committee was not persuaded by France's claim that a ban on face covering was necessary and proportionate from a security standpoint or for attaining the goal of 'living together' in society," it said.
A French Foreign Ministry spokesman said the law was legitimate, necessary and respected religious freedom.
Also ...
https://teakdoor.com/speakers-corner/...face-veil.html
https://teakdoor.com/world-news/17656...nurseries.html
...current membership of the UN Human Rights Committee:
COUNTRY TERM EXPIRES IN Afghanistan 2020 Angola 2020 Australia 2020 Belgium 2018 Brazil 2019 Burundi 2018 Chile 2020 China 2019 Côte d’Ivoire 2018 Croatia 2019 Cuba 2019 Democratic Republic of the Congo 2020 Ecuador 2018 Egypt 2019 Ethiopia 2018 Georgia 2018 Germany 2018 Hungary 2019 Iceland****
Iceland was elected on 13 July 2018 to serve as a member from 13 July 2018 to 31 December 2019 to replace the vacancy left by the United States following its decision to withdraw its membership2019 Iraq 2019 Japan 2019 Kenya 2018 Kyrgyzstan 2018 Mexico 2020 Mongolia 2018 Nepal 2020 Nigeria 2020 Pakistan 2020 Panama 2018 Peru 2020 Philippines 2018 Qatar 2020 Republic of Korea 2018 Rwanda 2019 Saudi Arabia 2019 Senegal 2020 Slovakia 2020 Slovenia 2018 South Africa 2019 Spain 2020 Switzerland 2018 Togo 2018 Tunisia 2019 Ukraine 2020 United Arab Emirates 2018 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 2019 United States of America**
The United States resigned its membership in the Human Rights Council , effective 1700 hours EDT, June 19 20182019 Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 2018