|
25/07/2010 18:07:17
|
squidgylover
Posts 158
|
@ Jeanne d'Arc...that sounds an awful lot like appeasement to me,should we agree to all thier demands due to fear of reprisal?
|
|
25/07/2010 18:01:17
|
squidgylover
Posts 158
|
Good point Scooby,i found this article on the bbc website,which may "shed some light" on the subject
Traditional Muslim dress reduces sunlight exposure
An increase in the number of cases of the bone disease rickets may be partly due to strict Muslim dress codes, say doctors.
The Asian community appears to be particularly vulnerable to the disease, which is caused by a lack of vitamin D.
This is produced naturally by the body when strong light hits the skin.
However, traditional Muslim female dress places emphasis on relatively little skin being exposed to sunlight.
This can lead to a vitamin D deficiency in mothers which is then passed on to their children during and after pregnancy.
The deficiency stops the bones developing properly, producing bow-legs and thickened wrists and ankles.
|
|
24/07/2010 20:30:22
|
scooby
Posts 111
|
One thing that crossed my mind, is that surely it cannot be beneficial for the health of a burkha wearer, being in mind that it is sunlight that supplies us with most of our vitamin D which is absorbed through the skin.
|
|
24/07/2010 19:50:15
|
Jeanne d'Arc
Posts 83
|
There is another reason why it would be unwise to ban the Burkha. It has become increasingly evident, particularly after the testimony of Lady Manningham Buller the other day, that there has been an increased threat of terrorism in this country because of the Iraq war, entered into by the previous government and agreed by Parliament only because the then government distorted or misrepresented the intelligence about WMD. It would therefore be unwise to do anything to give radicalised Moslems any further excuse for grievance. Provided the Burkha poses no threat to security, it should be tolerated, not only because we are supposed to be tolerant nation, but also in the interests of self-preservation.
|
|
19/07/2010 18:19:12
|
Kevin Fulcher
Posts 106
|
The questions really raised here are 'How far does outward display in dress bear witness to a set of cultural and religious values? and 'Are those values sufficiently incompatible with those of one's own culture to justify banning the wearing of specific costumes?'
Two historical examples; after the defeat of Bonnie Prince Charlie's cause in 1745, the wearing of Highland dress was totally prohibited by law; it wasn't until a century later, in mid-Victorian times, that it became both permissible and fashionable with the Queen's passion for all things Scottish and the law was repealed.
To wear the uniform of a Nazi SS Officer today would be considered, at least, highly offensive and in gross bad taste in this country; in Germany it would be a criminal offence.
The wearing of the Burka is not a basic tenet of Islam, and it would be a gross error to consider that all Muslims consider it essential. It is a characteristic of the Moslem sect known as the Wahhabi's, after their 18th Century founder. The Wahhabi emphasis on conformity makes of external appearance and behaviour a visible expression of inward faith.
Therefore, whether one conforms in dress, in prayer, or in a host of other activities becomes a public statement of whether one is a true Muslim.
Other Moslems consider this complete nonsense, just as Christians like myself consider the view of certain conservative evangelicals on women in general and women bishops in particular or homosexuals (and, PLEASE, don't interpret that to mean that I support paedophile priests) not to represent my own views on the universal nature of the message of Christ.
However, my understanding of what it means to live in a free country, means that people are free to wear burkas, with one or two exceptions, eg bank Robbers wearing the gear to avoid detection and arrest are obviously not exercising a just freedom of expression. Also, if women are compelled to wear it by their husbands, that rather upsets my ideas on marriage as an equal partnership.
What I find also unjust, is that, although I don't agree with your views, squidgy, that the oppressive laws passed by the late unlamented (at least by me) government makes the public criticism of religions and religious pracices, particularly Islam, a crime loosely defined as 'hate speech'. Unless the religion happens to be Christianity, of course. I am quite happy to defend my own religious views, and I am neither threatened or upset by scornful comments of the 'Sky fairy' variety. Dawkings is complete tosh, by the way. Militant Atheism is just as blinkered and extreme as all other forms of militant religious expression.
Ban the Burka? No
Be free to criticise the wearers? Yes
|
|
19/07/2010 15:56:19
|
hurstian
Posts 48
|
paolo its a normal photo as is yours, they are taken to one side by female "check in" staff and asked to lift their veil
|
|
19/07/2010 11:23:57
|
paolo
Posts 82
|
just as a matter of interest, what photo does a woman wearing a full burkha have on her passport?
And does she have to show her face when passing through customs.
|
|
19/07/2010 09:11:31
|
Sezles
Posts 47
|
More fool them I say. I can just imagine my Mrs putting up with stuff like that.
|
|
18/07/2010 23:27:15
|
squidgylover
Posts 158
|
Britain's Immigration Minister Damian Green said forbidding women in the UK from wearing certain clothing would be "rather un-British".
I say,wearing clothing that is divisive and excludes people from any sort of social interaction is fundamentally wrong in a democratic society,what is "unbritish" is not being able to smile and say "hello" to someone because they have thier face hidden under a veil..
I dont get it,its not a part of islamic law that women should be covered from head to toe in cloth,yet i saw a woman (i think it was a woman?) in maidstone yesterday,walking 10 paces behind her husband who was dressed in western clothes??
|
|
pages:
1 |
|---|