Deconstructing the veil.

[tracy]

you have missed my point, why are these women here in the first place, so did the canada invite them or did they seek for assyllium, and why did they come here, not arab emirates for example, or indonesia, or one of those progressive muslim countries if they are so keen on having it their way?
You are forgetting something, they came here to live with the people who aren't like them, but the more of them migrate the more you feel oppressed by their demands for policies. For example, demand for not having Xmas in some schools, as it affects their children's beliefs, demand for dressing codes to non muslim women, as it may inadvertantly affect their male needs, and after all, the more of them migrate the higher the crime rate in society. They teach their kids to hate the westerners, christians, asians etc. And they should be welcomed and respected, HELLOOOOOO! are u there? Let them learn the manners of the western world first, and if they don't like it then they will only be polluting it, don't you think? Your mind is clouded and you are seeing the world through the pink glasses, take them off before someone breaks them.

I didn't miss your point. These women came to a western country, they chose to do so. I get that. Those who came to Canada also chose to come to a country whose official government policy encourages multiculturalism. We can't say "Come to Canada, we believe in multiculturalism, but you have to give up your religion, culture, style of dress, etc".

I'm not seeing the world through rose coloured glasses. You seem insistent on categorizing people. I just don't see things in the strict black and white way your posts give me the impression you do. I don't agree with muslims or jews or christians or hindus or sikhs or anyone else demanding Xmas be taken out of school or that people not from their religion should have to dress a certain way. I don't think a muslim should have the right to tell you how to dress (and they don't), I just don't see why it should be allowed the other way. I would think reasonable people could agree on reasonable limits.

My muslim friends don't teach their children to hate westerners. Their children ARE westerners as many of their parents are. Fortunately my parents didn't teach me to hate them either because I would have missed out on knowing some great people.

 

[northstar]

Sorry ms. patronizing, your are the one who is confused. You can't figure out the title of this post, and you were not able to contribute anything to uphold your argument, which was even more confused since you thought it was about a hankie on the head, and now you are trying to re-direct the discussion...

Now that is one confused earth...

 

[northstar]

Fortunately my parents didn't teach me to hate them either because I would have missed out on knowing some great people.

You know Tracy, you don't get it, this is not about hate.
This has nothing to do with hate, you are the only one saying it is about hate.
This is about being dictacted to by a group of people who have adapted a sudden new look that follows other sudden demands that we tolerate their discrimination and acts that are contemptuous of our society.

Now on second thought, it is about hatred, show by actions it is a demonstration of intolerance and hatred by Muslims for our society..

Hijab, the Islamic veil, is thus not “just a piece of cloth”. It serves as a demarcation line between proper, submissive Muslim women and *****s, un-Islamic women who deserve no respect and are asking for rape. The veil should more properly be viewed as the uniform of a Totalitarian movement, and a signal to attack those outside the movement. Judged in the light of the Mufti who said that women who don’t wear it are asking for rape, how on earth can the veil be said to be about “choice”? The freedom to choose not to be raped if you dress in a normal fashion in your own country? Is that what freedom is about in Europe in 2005? Fjordman blog, Feb. 20http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/03/muslim_rape_epi.php

Here is some more, l have lots of it for you to ponder...

 

[tracy]

You are confusing culture/custom with religion.

This is often the case. I've looked after a couple of women who had undergone FGM. They weren't all muslims. In many African countries, the reasons for FGM are not religious they are cultural. For some, female genitalia are considered unclean. Some tribes even believe that if a baby should touch the clitoris while being born it could die. It is also seen as a cultural rite into adulthood in places. Women who have not had it done are essentially still children, unable to take their place among the women in their communities. Many tribes are unwilling to give up any cultural traditions because they feel they have lost so many traditions already. The extent of the cutting depends on the group. It can involve anything from the removal of the clitoral hood only to the removal of all the external genitalia and sewing a woman up so only a small hole remains (infibulation). It's immediate risks include infection and hemorrhage. Long term infections are an issue and childbirth can be difficult if the most severe form is practiced (infibulation). Infibulation only accounts for less than 15% of FGM cases worldwide according to the stats I've seen. Women who have undergone this particular procedure require an episiotomy to give birth and some have to be cut to have sex for the first time. It doesn't cause cancer or fistulas. Sexual enjoyment varies according to the type of FGM done. Clitoral orgasm is impossible for any woman whose clitoris has been removed, however women are capable of reaching orgasm through penetration as well (so called g-spot stimulation). Mohammed, the Islamic prophet, made it clear that women have the right to sexual fulfillment, so infibulation in particular would seem to be completely contrary to his teachings. Even the passage often quoted to prove FGM is not haram (forbidden) in Islam has Mohammed telling a woman who does FGM on other women not to cut severely because that is less pleasurable for the woman and her husband.

Male circumcision is no longer recommended for health. It used to be. Our up to date knowledge indicates that it is not advisable to be done for health. The reason it is still done today is because of tradition. It does carry risks, though we are usually able to manage them well thanks to our medical system.

 

[tracy]

You know Tracy, you don't get it, this is not about hate.
This has nothing to do with hate, you are the only one saying it is about hate.
This is about being dictacted to by a group of people who have adapted a sudden new look that follows other sudden demands that we tolerate their discrimination and acts that are contemptuous of our society.

...

I was responding to Chuckha and she specifically used the word hate, as in "they teach their kids to hate". You can read it in the post of hers I quoted.

I am not discriminated against by a woman choosing to wear what she wants in most circumstances.

 

[northstar]

Male circumcision is no longer recommended for health. It used to be.
Our up to date knowledge indicates that it is not advisable to be done
for health. The reason it is still done today is because of tradition.

That is a falsehood. It is done for health. For you to mis-lead people into believing this is wrong. Many young men who have not been circumsized have to undergo in in later years, which is much more painful, due to infection. This is fact. Although the laws do not state this is necessary at birth it is still being recommended by some doctors. In fact, my son was circumsized for health reasons and not for any other reason such as tradition. this has absolutely nothing to do with the mutilation of children for the purpose of getting a husband or for Islamic traditionalist reasons, it is done to predominatly Muslims' and is noticed worldwide, but since the procedure is banned in Western countries it is done mainly in the middle east.

Once again, this thread is about veils.

If you want to discuss sexual oppression there is a current thread on this topic that backs up what l have been saying. If you have any relevant points l would be delighted to consider them.

 

[tracy]

I work with babies. Trust me, no major medical association recommends routine infant circs anymore. Infections can be avoided and treated without circs. The risks associated with the surgery don't outweigh the benefits. Your doc is giving outdated advice if he still recommends it for health. Please see the American Association of Pediatricians statement or that from the Canadian equivalent. This is why health plans in Canada don't pay for it anymore. It is a cosmetic, elective procedure.

http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/babies/Circumcision.htm

<SPAN lang=EN-US><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Circumcision is a “non-therapeutic” procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social or cultural reasons.To help make the decision about circumcision, parents should have information about risks and benefits. It is helpful to speak with your baby’s doctor.<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-POSITION: 0% 50%; BACKGROUND-ATTACHMENT: scroll; BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat; mso-highlight: yellow">

 

[northstar]

No one has said anything about the Medical Association, and you are the one comparing it to Female Genitle Mutilation. You have made false statements in an attempt to once again re-direct the thread due to your inability to come up with any facts about the veil.

a picture so you can get it. And there is a sexual oppression thread, two different topics..

 

[tracy]

I don't compare the two as being equivalent to eachother. That's why I use their very different names (circumcision vs FGM). If I wanted to make them seem to be the same I would use the term female circumcision. Most women's health workers don't use that term for that very reason.

 

[earth_as_one]

This is the first post in this string:

British Muslims
Deconstructing the veil

Oct 12th 2006
From The Economist print edition
Why Britain is so het up about Muslim women covering their faces

British author Salman Rushdie said this week that "veils suck."



BOOK burnings are rare in Britain. Before 1989, when copies of Salman Rushdie's novel “The Satanic Verses” were incinerated in two cities, anyone searching for a really good literary bonfire had to look back to the religious upheavals of the 17th century. The Rushdie affair became a defining issue for a generation of British Muslims, and the argument over whether free speech is worth the occasional blasphemy has been smoking ever since.

This week Mr Rushdie, whose provocative prose earned him a fatwa and years of police protection, intervened in another row about Islam—over whether Muslim women who wear veils that cover everything but their eyes should take them off in public. His judgment? Veils “suck”.

The row over veils has aroused massive public interest and is starting to resemble the anguished debate that took place in France over the ban on headscarves in schools. It began when Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons, revealed on October 5th that he asked veiled women who came to see him at his constituency in Blackburn to show their faces.

Mr Straw said that he opposed passing laws on what to wear, but that veils make talking harder and emphasise separateness, and are therefore bad for community relations. He was backed this week by Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer, who added that immigrants should learn English and familiarise themselves with the Magna Carta.

Compared with previous clashes between the government and Muslims, the response to Mr Straw's plea for visible noses and mouths has been muted. The Muslim Council of Britain said Mr Straw was playing into the hands of people who hated Islam. A few hotheads tried to blame him for an attack on a woman wearing a veil. But there were no banners, marches or burnings.

Relatively few women wear veils. Informed guessers reckon that between 10,000 (the more likely estimate) and 40,000 of Britain's 800,000 Muslim women wear one. That number seems to be increasing, though. An influx of people from Yemen and parts of the Gulf where wearing a veil is the norm is one reason. But the practice is spreading beyond this group, to the 75% of British Muslims who are from Asian families. Many of those now covering up are the British-born children of immigrants, whose mothers do not wear veils themselves.

Two main reasons are commonly given for why more young Muslim women are covering up. First, it is a political statement, an in-your-face version of a “Free Palestine” T-shirt. Ghayasuddin Siddiqui of the Muslim Parliament points out that headscarf wearing blossomed among Muslim women in Britain after the Iranian revolution in 1979, and thinks something similar is happening now.

Second, Muslim women supposedly put on veils for reasons that blend feminism with religion. Though they are often pressed by their own families not to cover up, some choose to wear a veil out of at the amount of flesh on display on television or on the high street, because they dislike being ogled by men, and because a veil makes them feel safer.

“Personality dictates whether women wear a veil or not,” says Salma Yaqoob, a councillor in Birmingham who campaigned against the war in Iraq. Ms Yaqoob cites her own family as an example: she does not wear a veil, her sister wore one for a while but has now taken it off, and her mother wears one whenever she feels like it. Wearing the veil is, she says, a private matter.

Yet whatever the precise reasons for Muslim women covering up, the row has unveiled tensions within Britain. The main worry is about whether a formerly easygoing approach towards integrating ethnic communities is still working.

According to a Populus poll published in the Times this week, 69% of Britons think that Muslims make a valuable contribution to society—up ten points since the summer. But this broad approval is fragile: 60% told the same pollsters then that Muslims are viewed with suspicion by other Brits. The veil hardly helps to dispel such feelings, which is why some Muslims share Mr Straw's concerns. It is also a symbol of a separateness that no longer seems acceptable after London was attacked by home-grown suicide bombers last year.

economist.com

I agree with Rushdie that veils suck, but I also recognize a person's individual right to choose overrides my preferences about what they should wear. If a Muslim women does choose to remove her veil, I'd prefer she does this willingly rather than because of arbitrary/prejudicial laws.

Many Muslim immigrants came to here because they believed Canada is a tolerant country where they won't be harassed because of their religion. T already made this point. This string shows how intolerant many Canadians can be. Some opinions expressed here are disgraceful and not what I expected from fellow Canadians.

Let's be clear what the issue is not. Muslims are not trying to impose their will on us. If they were, they would be telling us what to wear.

The issue is whether the majority have a right to impose their will on a minority. Specifically, a few Muslim women want the freedom to wear clothing which does not violate their sense of modesty. Some intolerant bigots would like to impose their will on these women, take away their right to choose by forcing them to wear clothing which would make them feel exposed and uncomfortable.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects an individual's right to choose, as long as it doesn't interfere with safety/security. In this case, the Charter clearly sides with a Muslim woman's to choose what she wants to wear in public.

What some bigot thinks is appropriate or normal clothing to wear in public isn't a security/safety concern.

By the way, what Muslim women wear varies significantly from one Muslim sect to another. Only a small minority of Muslim women choose to cover their faces.

 

[CDNBear]

the Charter of Rights and freedoms was not Eloquently argued, it was interpreted to suit a point of view. The Charter of Rights and Freedom is about protecting our society and our rights. That is about the Rights of a child to be protected, have a education that is free from oppression, and to live in communities that aare also free of racism, discrimination etc. Our children are also protected against child abuse and have guaranteed freedoms.

As much as it pains me to say it, the Charter was written to protect all of Canadian society, not just those that were here when it was written.

By forbidding other religions from wearing veils, or practicing their faiths freely, we would be no better then the countries they fled.

I and most Canadians, have no problem with anyone practicing any religion that does not infringe on societies rights and freedoms. It is only when the vocal minorty, sqeaks until they are placated. That is an infringment on society as a whole.

We must maintain equality for Canada to be a truly free and multicultural society. Multiculturalism is not out of reach, it is strained by those that use it and the Charter to gain advantage or standing above others.

This is, IMHO, where northstar is coming from. He see the continuous erosion of a set of standards, as have I, and fears that the government of the day will continue to allow this erosion until, or country is a failed state, like the many nations these very people fled in the first place. So I can understand his plight and aggression.

His stance is echoed in communities all over Canada, as people increasingly find themselves surrounded by immagrants, and a changing sociological dynamic that is foriegn to them and they find themselves frustrated, this usually leads to anger. To some extent, rightly so. Especially when the influx of immagrants, displaces long rooted community ties or begins to argue for exemptions to the norm.

 

[northstar]

Well said Cdnbear!

I actually was just using the word 'our' loosely. l have no problems with multi-culturalism, but there has to a measure of compromise between all parties. I have no problem with immigration because my parents were immigrants, so l understand the need to fit into a society. When I was stating the 'our' l was distinguishing between the country as in security, our children's rights for a certain quality of education etc., as opposed to the increasing demands of a minority.

So if a young Muslin girl wants to cover her hair in my opinion that should never be an issue, it is her right to freedom and liberties.

I am really against the veil because it is a political statement, a sign of contempt and is this growing show of intolerance to our society, the underlining law, and all those efforts that have been made to have a peaceful society.

If l have openned some eyes to at least consider this, then l am satisfied.

 

[CDNBear]

Well said Cdnbear!

I actually was just using the word 'our' loosely. l have no problems with multi-culturalism, but there has to a measure of compromise between all parties. I have no problem with immigration because my parents were immigrants, so l understand the need to fit into a society. When I was stating the 'our' l was distinguishing between the country as in security, our children's rights for a certain quality of education etc., as opposed to the increasing demands of a minority.

So if a young Muslin girl wants to cover her hair in my opinion that should never be an issue, it is her right to freedom and liberties.

I am really against the veil because it is a political statement, a sign of contempt and is this growing show of intolerance to our society, the underlining law, and all those efforts that have been made to have a peaceful society.

If l have openned some eyes to at least consider this, then l am satisfied.

I concure, there are far to many people that use this issue as a political statement and attack the "norm" while using the charter as a weapon against society on mass. But I think in tracy's case, she is merely proclaiming the legitamate use of the veil, by the sect that believes in it's value.

If ones religious beliefs endanger, encroach, interfere or in any way are a detriment to other members of society, then those beliefs do become a violation of the Charter, and should be scrutinized. But the mere wearing of the veil in public, does not really affect the average citizen.

 

[northstar]

Bear-
Oh but it does, before 9/11 and all the rest of the terrorist attacks like in Bali, and London to name a few, when the Jihad Muslims celebrated in the streets the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, they declared war on the Western world.

That was when the Taliban ruled and oppressed women by ordering that they had to wear dark shrouds with the faces covered.

In Canada and the US it was unusual to see this form of dress, and in fact in TUrkey and other places in the world it was banned as it was noted that it was cultural not religious. And it was a sign of oppression of women which free countires do not allow.

In Norway it is recognized for what it is, and intolerance for ohters and a show of contempt and a refusal to honour the society they have chosen to embrace so it has been banned.

The dress in our country prior 9/11 was colourful attractive loose dresses, or even jeans and a head scarf.

This new movement of the burka and veil has never posed a problem before. Yet now it is around as a political statement and a show that the older, strict and intolerant religion is being adopted. The new fad.

The problem with this is that it is indeed a security threat, since in England recently a Jihad Muslim Terrorist was caught trying to escape authorities.

In addition, as l have already posted several times Bear, we have a school system that is set up and the children are not discriminated against, if they are it is punishable by law.

The burka-mask being removed for one sex and not the other is gender discrimination which is not tolerated and punishable by law.

Furthermore, the burka and veil is concealing the expression of a persons face and children need the interaction of this and deserve this quality of education. SO by imposing a mask of any sort over a teachers face is an infringment of this vital part of the education process and in fact by action is lowering a standard of high quality education.

In addtion the wearing of the mask has been used in acts of violence, crime and war and so it is by association a frightening look, similar to the Klu-Klux-klan, so why should our society have to put up with this sudden change when the KKK was outlawed years ago.

In fact it is similar to the KKK because riots are going on with all the faces masks and violent burning effigies, and so it is difficult to apprehend those responsible for the disruption and it is difficult to identify those Jihad Muslims' that are trying to control our society and freedoms of speech and liberty.

This is basically about control, and a minority religion that is demanding through acts of violence and constant whinning that we change our rules to accomodate their intolerance and feelings of superiority.
I think that there comes a point when we have to say enough is enough our children come first, as well as the rights and freedom of our country.

 

[Chukcha]

In addtion the wearing of the mask has been used in acts of violence, crime and war and so it is by association a frightening look, similar to the Klu-Klux-klan, so why should our society have to put up with this sudden change when the KKK was outlawed years ago.

Especially nowdays, with the world's terrorism, they should be more concerned of ordinary people's security.
We don't know how long is it until next terrorist act takes place again, but by seeing more of these covered up peole, we feel even more unsecured and paranoid. Why don't we deserve to feel at least a bit more secured, I don't give a damn what their culture is all about, I just care about me and my family being safe, by seeing them covered - I don't feel safe enough.

 

[Chukcha]

I mentioned a movie once in one of topics - "White sun of the desert", it is actually showing there how one of those muslim bandits covered under the veil to able to murder, stab in a back murder.

 

[iARTthere4iam]

I don't care if someone wears a veil or a tank top. But to separate yourself from others by wearing a veil and then wonder why you aren't being accepted by society is ridiculous. I agree with what Jack Straw said about the effect of the veil on society. You don't have to take the veil off but it would help.