is it ok to ban the hijab??

Post Reply New Topic

Is it ironic that I find intolerance intolerable?

I'd say your intolerance of others opinions is typical of many left/liberal types. I do find it a touch ironic, truth be told.

Exactly what I said. The school would either have to acknowledge the fact that an expert is saying you need to wear something or disregard the expert. I don't think they would necessarily want to do the latter because of liability issues.

You havent yet given any clear examples of how people are treated like second-class citizens.

E2A there are some examples in the OP, but not enough imo to constitute second-class status overall.

Im going to start a religion that forces you to wear a motorcycle helmet in public just to bug bank staff.

I believe the hajib is morally wrong because it is dehumanizing towards women. The face is what makes us most individual. It is not mentioned anywhere in the Korans so the claim that those who share this belief are anti-Muslim is a canard. It is true that certain "Muslim organziations" claim that attacks on the hajib are motivated by anti-Muslim bias, however those same groups are quick to put out that the hajib is a cultural rather then religious garb.

I oppose any kind of national ban on the hajib, but I would protest strongly against it.

I think if you spell "come" "cum" it takes on an entirely different meaning.

what i want to know is what is a hijab? is that were uh someone punches you in the ribs

I have a hard time seeing how it could be fine for doctors to wear something, but not permissable for nurses to wear the same thing, so long as it didn't cause any confusion about what one's job was.

Sorry about the weird reactions from some, I guess it's inevitable that you'll find a few like that in any group as big as this one (10,000 WP members). We come here and discuss how wrong it is that society will not accept us for being different, yet some turn right around and say that it's an abomination for a society to accept people who are different. Mind-boggling.

It's a covering over one's hair.

a a cafeteria hat? shower cap? haha.

So long as a garment does not hinder communication, I don't see what it would matter. It is when someone's face is covered that communication is hindered and in public that is a hindrance. If one wants to wear the full hijab, then they should do so within its cultural context, whether that be in a community or school that supports such things for religious or cultural reasons.

Braids, dreads, tats, who cares? I think a certain dress code is appropriate in school, as kids act so stupid with clothes, but otherwise, allow them their expression.

I don't think it should be banned. I used to walk down the street in NYC and see the Chasidic Jews in all-black suits and black hats and the Chasidic women with their hair covered either with wigs or scarves. I didn't even notice them after a while. Same with the Indian women in their Sari's. I think it would be a double standard for me to say that these people should be allowed to do what they've been doing for decades, but single out a hijab for banning.

BTW, if someone tried to ban a Jew from wearing a skullcap, all hell would break loose - yet people try to rationalize banning a hijab?!?!? I think it's a deplorable double standard, and we are on dangerous ground trying to impose our cultural values on Muslims. When Westerners did that to the Jews, it was called the Inquisition, and it's looked at as a black mark on the record of Christianity. Now we're on the verge of repeating that same mistake. It' sickening, really.

Britain has a right to do whatever it wants. It's their country, and THEY are the INDIGENOUS population.

If immigrants don't like the way the British do things, they can move somewhere else, or go back home.

Moving to someone else's country is a privilage, not a right.

Well, sort of. The indigenous population were mostly overwhelmed by a couple of invasions of Celtic people, who were then driven into the far corners of the island by invading Germanic people, who are the ancestors of those we think of as English. English = Angeln, people from the vicinity of Schleswig, Germany. In Welsh they are still referred to as Saesson (Saxons).

Actually, it is often a right. Anyone who lives in a Commonwealth country (of which there are 53) is entitled to travel to, and stay in, any of the others.

As you point out, the dress issue is one where certain religions get preferential treatment because the majority of followers happen to have darker skin than your average northern european. More important is the state sponsored oppression of those who wish to question this, and criticise the way the Blair regime has turned parts of this country into no-go areas for white northern europeans. For example, anyone working in the public sector expressing my views would be summarily sacked. They'd be branded racist, and would get no help to defend themselves from the unions. The same applies to many large private sector businesses. In fact, many are in cahoots with the government and make large amounts of money by targeting certain products at these religous groups.

I could also cite what's called " positive discrimination", where white northern europeans are excluded from certain jobs. I'll be blunt, as usual, and tell you that I think those responsible for that kind of thing should be put against a wall and shot as traitors. Furthermore, our position as second class citizens is now firmly enshrined in law with these new "hate" crimes. If a white male attacks another white male in a heat-of-the-moment altercation and calls him a fat scouse bastard, for example, then if no one gets seriously hurt the offender would probably just get a caution from the police. But if the person being attacked was of a certain racial type, and scouse was replaced with black in the verbal exchange, the offender would probably be looking at a prison sentence.