Re: Sarkozy speaking sense?
 

cos it's used to make violins strings, worth a fortune in persia



The same people who wrote the bible, thought the world was flat... they could be wrong about other things maybe?

Re: Sarkozy speaking sense?
 

That lasts up until you start having people taking down nativities and Christmas banners for fear of 'offending' other faiths. At which point a Sarko-esque stance becomes appropriate again. Yes, you're welcome to live in this country, but it's primarily a Christian country, so there's going to be Christian religious festivals. If you don't like it, go home. In much the same way that we wouldn't expect you to stop crying out for morning prayer because the shouting offended us while we visited you.

Re: Sarkozy speaking sense?
 

I've thought about this one quite a bit and several staff and students have raised it. But I can't decide where I stand as I can see many points of view.

Firstly, IMO, women can do, say or wear anything they choose to, within the law and hopefully within common decency. Which means they should not be forced to wear anything because of one interpretation of a religious work or indeed because the men of their religion and culture demand it.
Trouble is, that also means that the state, IMO, cannot demand that they wear head and face revealing clothing.
Then again I have known of women who choose to wear the full covering (and the term for this form of dress varies from nation to nation, language to language and culture to culture) and indeed find it empowering to do so. They find it gives them freedom to be, say, act in their own way without any gender politics and stuff getting in the way.
I can also very clearly understand how and why a full facial covering (in fact for men as well as women) is a real hindrance to communication. As Maria said this is true for those who lip read, but it is also true in other ways where people read from gacial expressions the feelings and emotions of another human being.

I guess I just dislike any law that is better served by freedom of choice and intelligent tolerance of difference.

Re: Sarkozy speaking sense?
 

i've met women who have this opinion too and tbh i really think this has been conditioned into them by their society and other matriarchal figures from an early age.

The final line you wrote says it all to me, they feel that way yet they could still say and be what they wanted without the large bit of black cloth covering them from head to foot and including their face. And as for the gender idea, again i see this as being conditioned into them since its ONLY women who wear thee coverings so how the heck they think it fres them of their gender being an issue is beyond me.

there was only ever one girl who was honest with me about why she wears her covering (no face cover for her tho) and that was simply this... Its saves me from having to be a fashion victim like a lot of my friends are and it also saves me having to fek about with my hair everyday too. All i need to do is my make-up" and she didn't wear much make up either.

Like i said in my original post...another thing that really bothers me about the need for womed to wear this is that "if men were to see them uncovered (is in normal everyday clothing) they would not be able to control themselves sexualy." And i object to being classifeid as a rapist by proxy.

Re: Sarkozy speaking sense?
 

That's an intereresting point Spidey, that those women who feel empowered have been conditioned to think that way. I'm not sure you're right though, but i'm certainly no expert. I can think of several examples where having the true person covered, ie with a uniform, style of clothing etc, makes people see you as something other than 'a gender' first. but still the element of choice is there, which is what I think is most important.

I completely take your point though about being classified as a rapist by proxy. That is both demeaning to men and victimises women as weak. And it's not that far away from my objection to being labelled a petrol thief by garage forecourts.

Re: Sarkozy speaking sense?
 

Raises an interesting point tho - freedom of choice is great, but what do you do in cases of blatant conditioning such as the example given? Should they also be given free choice, even tho it may be completely wrong? And who is to say who is conditioned and who is totally rational? I mean, we must all be conditioned by our parents to a certain extent...

Re: Sarkozy speaking sense?
 

its an endless arguement thats the problem. Like you said ophic, while we could see one thing as conditioning its also possible to argue that what we see as ok is just another form of conditioning. My head is hurting now lol

Re: Sarkozy speaking sense?
 

You didn't see many women in this country wearing Burkhas before the Gulf War kicked off in 1991. Since then it's become a symbol of defiance by muslim women to stamp their view and show support for the islamic way of life in the only way they can. Before Jan 1981 most Muslims in the UK were quite happy to semi-integrate into society - since Bush/Blair decided to go to war with Iraq the muslim community of UK has tuned it's back on integration and has become more distanced from western cultures.

Re: Sarkozy speaking sense?
 

ya reckon thats what it is lozzo? not looking for arguement, just interested if that is the reason. I cant say pre 1991 what the situation is like, but if thats true then that is an interesting point. I do think that sometimes people are purposely not trying to integrate to the country. I do agree that if you come to a country you should abide by its rules and beliefs but also if your willing to do that then we should also be willing to accept other beliefs. Its not a simple answer mores the pity

Re: Sarkozy speaking sense?
 

Not so sure if thats right mate, it may have been where you lived/worked but certianly in some commmunities it was always that way.
Perhaps it became more noticable after that war due to more people fleeing those countries and seeking refuge here???

Agree with the last stament there for sure. But why do you menation 1981 as a time reference? Bush/Blairs influence and the current agression againt the middle east has occured since 2001/2003. I just lost the connection between your 2 timelines.