Story Comments
Posted by: Dionys 6 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
75%
Dionys6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's a conservative religious garment often in use in the more conservative Muslim countries. It's not a 'Taliban' garment. The same issues regarding covering women can be found in both the Bible and Qu'ran and can be seen in Muslim culture and Orthodox Russian/Eastern-European culture.
Reply
What people might want to do is ask the women who wear them what they think. A large majority, when allowed to speak freely, appreciate the wearing of the outfits.-
83%
CRYMTYPHON6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"When allowed to speak freely"?
Reply
When does that happen?
Some sidewalk interview?
A door to door poll?
Conservative Moslem women are not allowed to talk to strangers unacompanied
by a male relative.
They are not supposed to be out .
And what percentage of slaves ever are in favor of freedom?
The paraphanalia of slavery: shackles, iron collars, - and burquas.
It is up to free people to ban them.
No doubt their decendents will thank us.
Assuming we do anything, anyway.-
100%
Beau78905 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have to go with Dionys here. While I may not agree with their choice to wear burqas, some women would in fact choose to wear them.
Reply
I'd say it's up to free people to choose for themselves, and for other members of society to be tolerant of their choices.-
100%
CRYMTYPHON5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I, (and you and dionys) spend most of our time on propeller proclaiming the duties of a community to its individuals.
Reply
There can not exist, without acknowledging the the duty of the individual to the community.
If you belong to it,
- you are not allowed to teach and terrorize your children to hide their faces from the community.
That is, literaly, dis-figurement ; the removal of the face.
It is beyond the duties of tolerance.
A just society may say,
I don't know who you are; I have no obligation to you. Scram.
Which is a lot of words to have to use,
to argue against making women walk around in tarps because you own them.-
100%
Beau78905 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You know I'm not arguing for "making women walk around in tarps because you own them," right?
Reply
Your argument works better as a refutation of the fundamentalist Muslim law that requires burqas be worn than one in support of Sarkozy's desire to ban them.
And I'd agree: People should not be required to wear what they don't want to wear. And people should be free to wear what they want to wear.
In the context of proclaiming the duties of a community to its individuals, I'd put it this way: A community should not micromanage its members. A religion shouldn't dictate what they can wear. A government shouldn't either.-
-
100%
Beau78905 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No--IDs are there for the purpose of identifying someone. People should have to show their face on identification cards, and if checking the ID is necessary for security, a woman wearing a burqa should have to show that her face matches.
Reply
But that's different from banning burqas at all times, everywhere. -
-
-
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I know that no one who respects liberty is in favor of making anybody wear
Reply
tarps. Not Dionys, nor Beau.
But the most unpleasant and treacherous part of respecting liberty is
the obligation to say, occasionaly , 'you may not '.
If this were an issue of adults deciding freely what to wear,
- there would be no issue.
But it is not a matter of style;
but of humanity; of ownership and human faces.
To be raised not to have a face that you can share
with your fellow citizens, - means you are not a citizen.
You are owned by those who you are allowed to see you.
A free society will regard that as slavery; and as a threat.
It will say 'You may not'.
-
-
Neutral
Candida5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
CRYMTYPHON: " If you belong to it, - you are not allowed to teach and terrorize your children to hide their faces from the community."
Reply
There are a lot more hideous things some groups teach their children, like hatred, within the western countries. We should perhaps take care of those problems before we spend too much time on superficial things like clothes.
"That is, literaly, dis-figurement ; the removal of the face."
Yes, in a way it is, but there are other kinds. What about heavy make-up? How many women do you see bare-faced on the streets? We don't notice it because it's part of our culture. How about tattoos? Should people be allowed to cover their bodies, including their faces, with tattoos?
"It is beyond the duties of tolerance. A just society may say, I don't know who you are; I have no obligation to you. Scram."
Why? If it's really their freedom we are concerned about, you can do a lot to inform them of their rights as soon as they arrive in a western country. We could provide or even mandate free English (French or whatever) classes for them so they would not be completely dependent on their husbands. We could make sure that they have a basic understanding of the legal system. Why are we hung up about their clothes?
A few years ago, a small Muslim group wanted to introduce Sharia law for family matters in Ontario. I was at the parliament, with many Muslims as well, protesting against it. In the end, the Premier simply said: "No, thank you" and even took away similar arbitration rights from other religious groups. Clothing is not the real problem.
-
-
-
100%
Candida5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
CRYMTYPHON: "Conservative Moslem women are not allowed to talk to strangers unacompanied by a male relative. They are not supposed to be out ."
Reply
Then, I guess, the burqa is just a small part of the problem. We can't reshape their society, so we better let them do it.
Regarding those who immigrate to western countries, first generation immigrants tend to stick to their old customs, but later generations gradually shed them.
I've never seen women speak freely about the burqa, but I have seen discussions about the hijab, and some Muslim women wear it voluntarily
Take a look at this video:
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/tvoutils/globalfile...-
Neutral
Candida5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry about the link to the video; I've just noticed it doesn't take you where it should. Let's try this one, and click on the Watch Video link on the right column. A bunch of Muslim women freely discuss the hijab. Some are for it, some are against it.
Reply
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm...-
Neutral
Candida5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That doesn't seem to work either, so this is my last try. The first is the main page where one has to select Watch Video, and the second should be the video itself.
Reply
http://tinyurl.com/lfebub
http://tinyurl.com/kq355b
-
-
-
0%
Candida5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
CRYMTYPHON: "It is up to free people to ban them."
Reply
There is a difference between disliking or condemning something and banning it. How do you know how those women really feel? You can argue that they have been brainwashed, but do you really know what's good for them? Why would you force your will on them?
In the western countries they have the same rights as everybody else. It is true that they may be coerced by their families into wearing the burga, but lots of people are coerced into all kinds of things. My neighbor's daughter is going to have an arranged marriage this summer. Should I interfere because I find it coercion? If a freed slave insists on staying with his/her owner, should we interfere?
"The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest."
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859-
100%
CRYMTYPHON5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How do I know how they feel?
Reply
I don't.
I suspect that given a choice empty of threats,
many or most would keep to what they have been taught.
Slaves are seldom thrilled at the idea of freedom.
What of it?
There is no deeper human interaction than to simply show your face.
To be taught it must be hidden, as a sign of your ownership by the men of your culture,
is worse than wearing chains.
The affirmation of freedom is not confused with the indiference to the conditions of your fellow citizens.
if they are brought up to be slaves they will be slaves;
- and their future liberty must rest with those who act to free them.
-
-
-
loading ...
Ciera-Marie
Beau7890
Candida
CRYMTYPHON
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.