BBC on the new UK debate on covering ones face in public.

The rule should always be that you turn a book into a movie and never the other way around. So I tried to avoid putting as much text as I actually wanted to in this video. So I’ll put it here instead.

The fact is, ‘multiculturalism’ or ‘multi-faith’ and whatever other euphemisms are commonly used, is an oxymoron. In some ways, they are like a grandfather paradox in time travel discussions. They simply cannot be. You cannot have more than one set of basic values in operation at one time in one area for disparate sets of people. This leads to an intolerable situation which sooner or later leads to the break down of a civilization or society, if for no other reason than because one loses all respect for the authority of the state, as you know that you are selected for unfair treatment compared to members of another group.

In sharia societies, they encode the idea that non-muslims are second class citizens. So at it is actually more sustainable than what we are doing when we pretend that all people are equal before the law, and yet are not.

Either you can wear a disguise in public or you cannot. But when you allow one group to do so, and especially for irrational reasons like, in the case of Islam, religion who’s regulations are arbitrary and even occasionally somewhat whimsical, holding only one thing in common.

What allows them the advantage.

(Richard sent in this related link on UK law and sharia in this instance)

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

7 Replies to “BBC on the new UK debate on covering ones face in public.”

  1. Sharia law is not derived exclusively from the Koran, it’s slightly more complicated than that, but regardless, there is no need to determine whether it is a religious requirement as no religious practices should be afforded exemption from the rule of law. The state should not dictate to women what they should wear, because at the end of the day men never have any legal or regulatory restrictions placed on what they wear. Whether it be short skirts, low cut tops, high heels or a hijab, the state should stay out of it. By all means, the state should support women who are forced to wear something against their will, but dictating what women should or shouldn’t wear must be opposed.I believe we’re allowed to wear what we like at any time of the day…I am more disgust to see teenagers drunk and vomiting on the street. Also to see Anglos wearing socks with their sandals. Muslims who wear it are rarely ever on the wrong side of the law, they do not harm people. Surely a liberal country would not force people to wear specific types of clothing if they did not want to.

    The Muslims in the UK are more organised, educated and more integrated (believe it or not) so banning it would cause harm, distrust and perception of persecution against minorities. The Niqab does not actually do anything to anyone. It’s a piece of cloth. Muslims who wear it are rarely ever on the wrong side of the law, they do not harm people and are getting on with their lives. Yet politicians and a large section of the public are so fixated on The French made a law in 1905 to establish that public schools, hospitals, courts, town halls etc. should be neutral i.e. no religious symbolism on the walls or in the clothes and jewellery you wear. Its a way of saying that France is a lay republic and religion has no role to play in the affairs of state. The law was not enacted in response to immigration or as a means of integration of foreigners or any of the preoccupations currently being discussed. I personally think its a healthy way of doing things.the issue. Like Rome is falling apart but let’s have one last Gladiator tournament. Get your priorities right.

    I believe that a Muslim women should still be allowed to wear the veil in court if her facial expression has little bearing on the outcome of the case. Where her testimony is needed and the jury is required to see her body language, I am inclined towards the view that she should lift it. It should still be done in a sensitive manner, such that the person painting / drawing inside the court does not take depictions, or photos are not to be taken. It is also the opinion of many Islamic scholar too, who say that during testimony, a Muslim is allowed to lift the veil, within conditions.

    No – it is not a cultural tradition. The prophet’s wives wore veils. Although it is not specified in the Qur’an it is mandatory under sharia law and the references to veiling can be found in the hadith and Sirat. There are many religious laws not found in the Qur’an as the scholars in the centuries after the prophet’s death who compiled sharia law used the hadith and the biography of the prophet as their source.(Sirat Rasul Allah) Muslims love their religion. They may seem extreme to you, but that is not the case for Muslims.

    It is a good idea to actually listen to Muslim women themselves, and particularly if they themselves wear a niqab, because I speak to Muslim women in a variety of contexts (at work, and in mosque) and they are not wearing the veil unwillingly. They choose to. It can be empowering and meaningful.

    Ask any Christian nuns.

    But no, “liberal” Britain thinks it knows what is best for Muslim women. So tolerance and acceptance goes out of the window, and people are being *told* what clothing they should wear. What do Muslim women themselves actually say? Because *they* are part of the British way of life, as much as anyone else, and their culture is part of *our* culture, whether people like it or not. Wearing a niqab is completely harmless, and Muslim women have as much right to walk the street in a niqab as a nun has to walk the street in a wimple and habit. Our society is diverse, and it is small-minded to pick on people and other them, just because we don’t really like their religion. Islamophobia is rife in this country at the moment. … Have you asked these Muslim women what *they* want? Or does one section of British society feel superior to another and think they have some right to dictate what the minority group should wear? Is it a principle of British values that I should dictate to you what I think you should wear? Then again, I really don’t care, because what you wear is your own choice, and doesn’t harm anyone, and the same right should apply to Muslim women.

    Well I have to say it was useful when the Niqab woman walked to the court with her lawyer and she was surrounded by a scrum of reporters cameras flashing. Maybe celebrities could wear one in such a situation to prevent their pictures ending up in the tabloids, the next time they have to attend court. Women in face veils – “They – are – just – ordinary – harmless – women.” So why is she up before the beak as a defendant? Can’t be that harmless, can she…? You think the veil should be banned for all because some are forced to wear it. The effective way must surely be t prevent the forced wearing of the veil not the double wrong of forcing people not to wear what they want to wear. Liberals need courage, to lack this courage is to be illiberal

    Britain is a diverse society. One part of that society is Muslim, and within the Muslim community, some women wear niqab. Like it or not, it is part of the British way of life. I like it. My niqab wearing friends are really nice, and I have no problem communicating with them, reading their mood and reactions from body language and tone of voice and eyes. I respect them. I respect their right to live this way. If they wear niqab in schools or college or on the street it is not the end of the world. It can work. It just takes the desire to accept their particular difference. Just as other people have to accept mine. Behind the controversy of the veil, I see a veiled attack on Islam. An illiberal ceiling to people who claim to be liberals on their own terms. Many of the comments on this website in the past week have been, frankly, shocking. The assault on Islam feels like ‘the new racism’, or its equivalent form of bigotry. In all my conversations with female Muslim friends, I have found a prevailing thread of choice and empowerment, from those who choose to wear head covering or niqab. Muslim women are strong. Please don’t patronise them with a feminism that *tells* them what they should wear. Try listening to them instead. They are active and resilient members of our society, who contribute to society, and really, great and wonderful UK public, what on earth have you got to fear? Are you *really* that scared and ‘intimidated’ by a woman expressing sincere faith in one (but not universal) expression of Islam? I don’t see a “debate”. I see a witch hunt.

    . I live in Germany and my daughter went to school with a number of Turkish girls who were born in Germany and who freely wear the veil. To a person, none of them were forced to do it but felt that wearing it protected them from being treated as sex objects. Mainly by Turkish men, I grant you, but it guaranteed them some peace and quiet from the hormonal blizzard that surrounds the average schoolgirl these days in our liberal and enlightened social mitten. For them it represented freedom and safety and the opportunity to be genuinely modest, which they found enormously appealing and, yes, liberating. There’s an awful lot wrong when this sort of protection is needed, but don’t assume that people you don’t know have no freedom of choice in this matter. That’s your assumption, and, may I suggest, a prejudice.

  2. The left pushed multiculturalism as a means of destroying the west, just as they started “white guilt” to destroy the west. White Guilt says we have to feel guilty for the sins of our ancestors and allow others in our nations to avoid assimilating to our culture. The idea of inherited guilt is what Hitler used to attack the Jews, it is as invalid now as it was then.

    To see the future of multiculturalism you only have to look at the Balkans, that entire region is multicultural and it has never known peace for more then a couple of years. This is the future of the west if we don’t fight back and win the war of survival.

  3. Multiculturalism is one thing, but wearing a mask in public is way over the top. I’m for banning the veil (and all public mask wearing). The veil is misogynistic. It also defeats the purpose of video surveillance cameras–making one group an exception to same.

  4. The state should not dictate to women what they should wear, because at the end of the day men never have any legal or regulatory restrictions placed on what they wear. Whether it be short skirts, low cut tops, high heels or a hijab, the state should stay out of it.

    This double speak aimed at liberals, is what Islamic lawfare is about. Socialism is the preparation ground for hard core communists, and the Democrats who had set the stage for this invasion, are being usurped by the fascists at their own game. Ever thus. They never learned from Germany to Spain to Argentina. Once you have a soft-brain generation who just want their sexing, texting, and next-thing, they’ll buy anything if it offers them peace. And the Religion of Peace is the way to go. (For Chris, this is irony).

    Except however, in Islamic countries the state DOES tell women what to wear and will beat them severely if they don’t.

    The state should not dictate to women what they should wear…

    As Islam permits Muslims to deceive and lie to the kufar to propagate Islam, called taqiyya, the London school of Mohammad is only shelling out what it gives to the dumb BBC-informed socialists on the streets. After they wake up from three submissions the night before, it is too late. Die as an apostate, or live following another herd. Snatched before Communism and the Party-Privileged could get to them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *