Page 3 of 4 [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Sallamandrina
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,590

24 Sep 2010, 10:17 pm

Robdemanc wrote:
I live in England. And I could gaurantee that if I went out walking down the street in the centre of town with a balaclava on I would be stopped by police and told to remove it. I cannot go into a bank or some bars with a hat on! People have been asked to take hoods of inside shops!


Do you think that's normal? While in England I was asked in a pub to take off my hat. It was a pill box type of hat which was barely covering the top of my head, while my face was entirely visible 8O. If it's cold, I like to cover cover my nose with my scarf, will this become illegal too?


_________________
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live" (Oscar Wilde)


Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

25 Sep 2010, 5:55 am

Sallamandrina wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
I live in England. And I could gaurantee that if I went out walking down the street in the centre of town with a balaclava on I would be stopped by police and told to remove it. I cannot go into a bank or some bars with a hat on! People have been asked to take hoods of inside shops!


Do you think that's normal? While in England I was asked in a pub to take off my hat. It was a pill box type of hat which was barely covering the top of my head, while my face was entirely visible 8O. If it's cold, I like to cover cover my nose with my scarf, will this become illegal too?


I have been asked to remove my hat in a bar and I know others who have too. I think in cold weather we would be able to cover up but not inside a building.



Sallamandrina
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,590

25 Sep 2010, 6:06 am

Robdemanc wrote:
Sallamandrina wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
I live in England. And I could gaurantee that if I went out walking down the street in the centre of town with a balaclava on I would be stopped by police and told to remove it. I cannot go into a bank or some bars with a hat on! People have been asked to take hoods of inside shops!


Do you think that's normal? While in England I was asked in a pub to take off my hat. It was a pill box type of hat which was barely covering the top of my head, while my face was entirely visible 8O. If it's cold, I like to cover cover my nose with my scarf, will this become illegal too?


I have been asked to remove my hat in a bar and I know others who have too. I think in cold weather we would be able to cover up but not inside a building.


Well - do you find this OK? It never happened to me anywhere else in Europe and personally I see no reason to accept it. Next they might ask me to take off my shirt :lol:


_________________
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live" (Oscar Wilde)


Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

25 Sep 2010, 6:51 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
The theologically ultraliberal Canadian Muslim Congress has an interesting stance on wearing the burka in public:

Canadian Muslim Congress wrote:
TORONTO - The Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) is asking Ottawa to introduce legislation to ban the wearing of masks, niqabs and the burka in all public dealings.


http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/20091008.html

The Canadian Secular Alliance, a bit more of a civilly libertarian organization, disagrees.

Canadian Secular Alliance wrote:
What is the issue?
• Some Canadian public figures and organizations, including the Muslim Canadian Congress, have recently called on the government to ban certain forms of female Muslim dress. They argue that the niqab (face covering) and burka (full body covering) – for simplicity, collectively referred to herein as “the veil” – are an affront to Canada’s commitment to gender equality, and are psychologically and physically harmful to the wearer.
What is the CSA’s position on banning the veil?
• The CSA, as an organization advancing government neutrality in matters of religion, cannot support legal prohibition of the veil. The general view of the CSA is that:
(1) in the absence of a compelling reason to the contrary, no person should be forced to comply with a dress code imposed by the state; and
(2) no person should be forced to comply with a dress code imposed by their families, religious leaders, or cultural community.
• The CSA does not believe that the law is an instrument that can effectively address (2) while respecting Canadians’ fundamental rights and freedoms. Canadian law cannot shield a woman from non-violent influence exerted by others. Coercion involving violence or the threat of violence is already prohibited under the Criminal Code and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
• In short, the CSA supports both the right of women to wear the veil if they so choose, and the right of women not to wear the veil if they so choose. Instead of selectively banning some religious practices, our society should do more to ensure that girls and women in religious communities are aware of their rights as Canadians, and do more to support and enable them to exit a religious community should they so choose.


The Canadian Muslim Congress seems to have shifted rather starkly in such an anti-anything other than ultraliberal Islam position ever since the Canadian Muslim Union (more moderately liberal Muslims) split from the organization (the Canadian Islamic Congress represents fundamentalist Muslims, by the way).

I agree with the Canadian Secular Alliance & not the Canadian Muslim Congress, by the way.


I agree with the CSA too. Surely the government telling people they can't wear things is just as bad as religion telling people what they have to wear anyway? :roll:



Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

25 Sep 2010, 11:43 am

Sallamandrina wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
Sallamandrina wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
I live in England. And I could gaurantee that if I went out walking down the street in the centre of town with a balaclava on I would be stopped by police and told to remove it. I cannot go into a bank or some bars with a hat on! People have been asked to take hoods of inside shops!


Do you think that's normal? While in England I was asked in a pub to take off my hat. It was a pill box type of hat which was barely covering the top of my head, while my face was entirely visible 8O. If it's cold, I like to cover cover my nose with my scarf, will this become illegal too?


I have been asked to remove my hat in a bar and I know others who have too. I think in cold weather we would be able to cover up but not inside a building.


Well - do you find this OK? It never happened to me anywhere else in Europe and personally I see no reason to accept it. Next they might ask me to take off my shirt :lol:


I find it a bit odd that in bars they want you to remove your hat but I don't mind doing it. It may be a problem if someone wears a hat to cover up a disfigurment or baldness or something then it might upset them and the bar would be in the wrong. Maybe they think hats are intimidating to the other customers?? Who knows.



merrymadscientist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 533
Location: UK

28 Sep 2010, 3:51 pm

This issue is becoming quite prominent in the UK. Niqab wearing has become popular amongst some young British born Muslim women (not compelled by family) as a form of self-expression, and I think it should be regulated the same way as other forms of self-expression such as multiple piercings and tattoos, or green hair - i.e. you can do what you want in the street or at home, but you must obey dress codes at work or in certain situations.

Luckily so far the courts seem to be fairly sensible - MPs must see constituents wearing the Niqab if they so choose, people can generally wear what they want in the streets (although nudism is an exception - not completely sure why, but the weather here doesn't encourage it anyway), security at airports requires revealing the face to the official and dress codes at work generally have to be adhered to. There was a case a couple of years ago where a woman wanted to wear the Niqab as a teacher of young children - she didn't get her way and I think it is unsuitable for anyone with public service jobs to do so (however if a private company wish to employ someone who wears it, that is up to them).

There have also been issues recently with wearing of necklaces (particularly crucifixes). Some jobs prohibit necklaces either for safety or presentation reasons and some Christians have complained that their 'freedom of religious expression' is being threatened. In this case I have no sympathy with them - they lost their cases anyway. But the trend towards this type of litigation is concerning because it seems to suggest that religious freedom of expression is somehow more important than other types of freedom of expression. If one person wins a case to wear a crucifix then can I wear a necklace too or are only religious people allowed this 'privilage'? If someone is allowed to wear the Niqab as a teacher, can I dye my hair green, pierce my nose multiple times and wear a distressed leather jacket to teach? Why is religious freedom of dress seen as more important than political/cultural/subcultural/personal freedom of dress? As an atheist I dispute that religion is somehow more important to someone's life than anything in my life can possibly be to me.



MotherKnowsBest
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,196

28 Sep 2010, 4:36 pm

Robdemanc wrote:
I reckon all western countries should have a law that requires the face to be visible in public at all times unless it is for health and safety reasons (like a motorbike helmet).


Move to Sweden and go out when it's -35 not including the wind chill factor and then say that. I bet you won't, you'll be saying "that burka looks nice and warm, where can I get I one?" :wink:



quiet_dove
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 290
Location: Massachusetts

28 Sep 2010, 5:17 pm

Frankly, I don't see why religious garments should be banned at all. This is just yet another way for people to discriminate against Muslims, as is the trend these days. I wish that society as a whole could get over its petty hatred of others.


_________________
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." - Albert Camus


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

28 Sep 2010, 10:03 pm

quiet_dove wrote:
Frankly, I don't see why religious garments should be banned at all. This is just yet another way for people to discriminate against Muslims, as is the trend these days. I wish that society as a whole could get over its petty hatred of others.


define hatred.

would living in a strict secular society mean that you live under a government that hates religion?


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


quiet_dove
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 290
Location: Massachusetts

28 Sep 2010, 11:14 pm

oscuria wrote:
quiet_dove wrote:
Frankly, I don't see why religious garments should be banned at all. This is just yet another way for people to discriminate against Muslims, as is the trend these days. I wish that society as a whole could get over its petty hatred of others.


define hatred.

would living in a strict secular society mean that you live under a government that hates religion?

No, secularism is based around the equal respect of all religions. Just because no one religion is promoted above the rest doesn't mean that all religions are hated. I mean, if we promoted one religion above the rest, we'd also have to promote the rest of the religions as well, since we'd end up with a theocracy if we let one single religion rule this country. Secularism is really the only way to prevent against a theocracy.


_________________
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." - Albert Camus


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

29 Sep 2010, 4:11 am

quiet_dove wrote:
No, secularism is based around the equal respect of all religions. Just because no one religion is promoted above the rest doesn't mean that all religions are hated. I mean, if we promoted one religion above the rest, we'd also have to promote the rest of the religions as well, since we'd end up with a theocracy if we let one single religion rule this country. Secularism is really the only way to prevent against a theocracy.


is french secularism the same as american secularism? would you consider the french and their banning of religious items hateful or respectful of all religions?


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

29 Sep 2010, 7:12 am

merrymadscientist wrote:
There have also been issues recently with wearing of necklaces (particularly crucifixes). Some jobs prohibit necklaces either for safety or presentation reasons and some Christians have complained that their 'freedom of religious expression' is being threatened. In this case I have no sympathy with them - they lost their cases anyway. But the trend towards this type of litigation is concerning because it seems to suggest that religious freedom of expression is somehow more important than other types of freedom of expression..


I think the issue taken was more that there is an unfair bias in British legislation towards one religious group over another. The argument (as I recall) stood that a small, discreet crucifix was verboten, but that other staff could wear all manner of religious regalia without censure. Another religious vs secular example was an argument over the provision of food to staff, where Muslims celebrating Ramadan might be offended by other staff members snacking. Thus "snacking must be banned." In general this seems to be the crux of the issue: that offence to one religion by censure of its activities and apparel must be avoided at all costs, but offence to another by the same activities is openly supported. As for the "safety and presentation" reasons: a great number of such regulations are beyond ridiculous and bear no similarity to reality or common sense, and the UK is notorious for gold-plating such dumb-assery instead of ignoring it.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


quiet_dove
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 290
Location: Massachusetts

29 Sep 2010, 9:38 am

oscuria wrote:
quiet_dove wrote:
No, secularism is based around the equal respect of all religions. Just because no one religion is promoted above the rest doesn't mean that all religions are hated. I mean, if we promoted one religion above the rest, we'd also have to promote the rest of the religions as well, since we'd end up with a theocracy if we let one single religion rule this country. Secularism is really the only way to prevent against a theocracy.


is french secularism the same as american secularism? would you consider the french and their banning of religious items hateful or respectful of all religions?

As long as they ban all religious items (including cross necklaces, rosaries, yarmulkes, nuns' habits, t-shirts with religious messages on them, and Hindu garments), then no, I wouldn't think that was hateful. As long as they allow some religious items but not others, though, they are being hateful.


_________________
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." - Albert Camus


quiet_dove
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 290
Location: Massachusetts

29 Sep 2010, 9:39 am

oscuria wrote:
quiet_dove wrote:
No, secularism is based around the equal respect of all religions. Just because no one religion is promoted above the rest doesn't mean that all religions are hated. I mean, if we promoted one religion above the rest, we'd also have to promote the rest of the religions as well, since we'd end up with a theocracy if we let one single religion rule this country. Secularism is really the only way to prevent against a theocracy.


is french secularism the same as american secularism? would you consider the french and their banning of religious items hateful or respectful of all religions?

As long as they ban all religious items (including cross necklaces, rosaries, yarmulkes, nuns' habits, t-shirts with religious messages on them, burkas, and Hindu garments), then no, I wouldn't think that was hateful. As long as they allow some religious items but not others, though, they are being hateful.


_________________
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." - Albert Camus


merrymadscientist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 533
Location: UK

29 Sep 2010, 3:03 pm

Macbeth wrote:
merrymadscientist wrote:
There have also been issues recently with wearing of necklaces (particularly crucifixes). Some jobs prohibit necklaces either for safety or presentation reasons and some Christians have complained that their 'freedom of religious expression' is being threatened. In this case I have no sympathy with them - they lost their cases anyway. But the trend towards this type of litigation is concerning because it seems to suggest that religious freedom of expression is somehow more important than other types of freedom of expression..


I think the issue taken was more that there is an unfair bias in British legislation towards one religious group over another. The argument (as I recall) stood that a small, discreet crucifix was verboten, but that other staff could wear all manner of religious regalia without censure. Another religious vs secular example was an argument over the provision of food to staff, where Muslims celebrating Ramadan might be offended by other staff members snacking. Thus "snacking must be banned." In general this seems to be the crux of the issue: that offence to one religion by censure of its activities and apparel must be avoided at all costs, but offence to another by the same activities is openly supported. As for the "safety and presentation" reasons: a great number of such regulations are beyond ridiculous and bear no similarity to reality or common sense, and the UK is notorious for gold-plating such dumb-assery instead of ignoring it.


The rules and regulations may well be ridiculous (I would not be surprised), however, if you are going to allow a religious group to flout them, then everybody else should be allowed to also. If it is dangerous to wear necklaces (there was also the case of a nurse - nurses are not allowed to for safety reasons), then this should apply to everyone. This particular rule may not affect other forms of religious garment - it is not discrimination of one religion over others, but all religions have different forms of expression and some are unsuitable in certain situations where others are not.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

29 Sep 2010, 4:54 pm

merrymadscientist wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
merrymadscientist wrote:
There have also been issues recently with wearing of necklaces (particularly crucifixes). Some jobs prohibit necklaces either for safety or presentation reasons and some Christians have complained that their 'freedom of religious expression' is being threatened. In this case I have no sympathy with them - they lost their cases anyway. But the trend towards this type of litigation is concerning because it seems to suggest that religious freedom of expression is somehow more important than other types of freedom of expression..


I think the issue taken was more that there is an unfair bias in British legislation towards one religious group over another. The argument (as I recall) stood that a small, discreet crucifix was verboten, but that other staff could wear all manner of religious regalia without censure. Another religious vs secular example was an argument over the provision of food to staff, where Muslims celebrating Ramadan might be offended by other staff members snacking. Thus "snacking must be banned." In general this seems to be the crux of the issue: that offence to one religion by censure of its activities and apparel must be avoided at all costs, but offence to another by the same activities is openly supported. As for the "safety and presentation" reasons: a great number of such regulations are beyond ridiculous and bear no similarity to reality or common sense, and the UK is notorious for gold-plating such dumb-assery instead of ignoring it.


The rules and regulations may well be ridiculous (I would not be surprised), however, if you are going to allow a religious group to flout them, then everybody else should be allowed to also. If it is dangerous to wear necklaces (there was also the case of a nurse - nurses are not allowed to for safety reasons), then this should apply to everyone. This particular rule may not affect other forms of religious garment - it is not discrimination of one religion over others, but all religions have different forms of expression and some are unsuitable in certain situations where others are not.


I'm reminded of the "Sikh not wearing a bike helmet" case, or the similar but more foolish "Sikh wants to wear turban whilst flying helicopter gunship." I forget how those two turned out in the end though.

The Nurse wearing jewellery thing is so much paranoid BS. Nurses wear lots of things that might "harbour germs", and always have, and its surprising how little infection is actually spread by lapel watches etc. There might be less of an issue with infection if they started getting a few more cleaners in to mop up the vomit/blood/fluids that most ill people secrete, and left the in-house laundries alone to actually clean/burn the relevant materials instead of farming it out to the cheapest bidder (which if you recall is how NASA lost a space-shuttle.)


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]