The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > It's all about mini skirts and veils > Comments

It's all about mini skirts and veils : Comments

By Mirko Bagaric, published 27/10/2006

In truth, opposition to the face veil is all about Western prejudice, just as opposition to the mini skirt is all about Islamic prejudice.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 21
  11. 22
  12. 23
  13. All
Western standards say no breasts on display. Muslim society feels a certain way about faces. Both societies have laws in place.
Believe it or not, most muslim women wear veils out of choice, as western men and women cover their genitals.

This is not a simple issue. Western society has standards of dress too. This is an issue of what level is permissible. To ban the veil is akin to forcing people to wear it... or perhaps like forcing women to cover their chest?

In any case, I wish people would stop and consider the issue fully before screeching one way or the other.

Amitarian - if you're going to quote people directly, get it right. You use the word intolerance. Bagaric used the word tolerance. As far as I can see your interpretation of this article is nothing short of totally haywire. Did you actually read it?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 27 October 2006 2:08:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD - you go to great pains to put your point of vie across and clearly a lot of thought - that is a good thing - few posters work as hard as you - but when we get to "established prevails, newby unveils" kind of assertion -

aren't we just mimicking the kind of cultural tyranny we condemn in places like Saudi Arabia?

And Sylvia I dont think I misrepresented you at all - I think you just dress up your intolerance as some sort absurd standard of conduct you arbitrarily impose on other people if they want to engage engage in social intercourse with you.

I can see this thread batting 100 by early next week -

These things can only end in tears - they always do

tracking back the history of harrasing the hajib or bothering the burqua - the wearing of those alluring ensembles was once simply labled un australian, people were worried becuase it looked unusual and different - the crticism now days has now escalated in keeping with our rising levels of paranoia about Islam

now it is labled an affront or a challenge to established norms - it is a political statemen; soon it will be described as an act of aggression and a threat - if it hasnt already been described as such.

A great deal of this stems from our Western leaders who have a vested interest in keeping the pot of intolerance towards Islam boiling in order to partialy justify there phoney war on terror - they need to kindle the fires under our sense of patriotism - and nothing brings out patriots like the smell of a new enemy - and Muslims are the enemy of the week at present - so what they wear, how they speak etc etc all become fair game.
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 27 October 2006 3:05:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mirko, I agree that Muslim women should be free to wear the veil or not as they choose, but not with your attempt at moral equivalence or accusations of “double standards”. The Sheik is no less free to criticise white Australians’ western dress standards than white Australians are to criticise the veil. The huge difference in Hilali’s comments is that they appeared to say that such dress standards invited assault. If a white male Christian religious or political leader argued that wearing the veil invited physical or sexual attacks on Muslim women, the response would (rightly) be just as furioius.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 27 October 2006 3:15:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it very strange that people find muslim women wearing veils as offensive? It is a persons individual choice to wear what they think is suitable for them based on their personal preferences. I myself would never walk around in the mid-riffs and mini skirts that some people walk around in today....but that is my choice, and I have nothing against those women who do.

It is simply their choice. To be offended by what others choose to wear is just being petty and a waste of time.

I think the comment the sheik has made is ridiculous and insulting to women, but people seem to forget that comments like this have been made plenty of times before by non-muslims as well. And are all these catholics and others forgetting the attire that nuns wear? I am not religious, so I don't understand the reasons behind why nuns wear what they do, but they must be covered from head to toe for some reason?
Posted by CoogeeGal, Friday, 27 October 2006 3:46:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't have a problem with beards, headscarves, turbans or crucifixes these are public expressions of a private religion.

Covering your face in an official function such as teaching does strike a raw nerve. People who wear hoods, masks and veils such as executioners, kkk clansmen and the like all have something very sinister about them. If people want to leave the house with their face covered that is well and good but if you enter someone elses property then I think they can request that you reveal your face.

You could say that it is a religous tradition but our legal system is full with compromises to suit the majority. If Arnhemlanders visited the city in the "10 canoes" traditional dress they would be requested to adjust their clothing too.

What if we started a "return to Eden with the latter day Adam" church, would we accept a fig leave (sinners only) as acceptable dress?
Posted by gusi, Friday, 27 October 2006 3:52:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It isn't quite like that - mini-skirt versus face-veil is simplistic. I lived/worked in a few muslim countries over some years. While there, my wife didn't leave the house in a mini-skirt - or even in short sleeves. As they say, when in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Sadly, the intro above is an imperfect portrayal of an intensly complex problem. No Churches were allowed there - but we have mosques here. Importing or owning a Bible over there was fraught: have a Koran here, if you wish. The real issue is whether women are people or chattels. In Qatar (which had a per-capita GDP 150% that of Australia) live births per female were 6.3 compared to 2.5 here. Later (I don't have current numbers) it was more like 5.8 - 1.8. Qatari women and female children went into the sea to "swim" clothed to wrist and ankle. Children had bare faces, but women had leather visors under their head-covering. It may have improved now, but there were NO women university graduates - NOT ONE, EVER - in a country where education, including tertiary education at foreign universities, was free. Actually, girls hardly went to school at all. No Dad would have had it otherwise, I suspect. Domestic accomodation was essentually divided into two. The (several) wives and the girl-children were out the back. Dad and the older boys were in the front. Females served meals to males, but didn't eat with them. While a chap was limited to four wives at the time, he could have more in the longer term. Say "talaq, talaq, talaq" and a wife is divorced and sent back to her family. Hence, Osama (long may he live in peace) was the first son of old bin Laden's tenth wife; overall, he was 17th of 52 siblings. Things are different over there.

This attempt to demonstrate a kind of parity between greco-roman/judeo-christian attitudes to women with those in traditional muslim countries only diminishes our appreciation of the vast differences.
Posted by fosbob, Friday, 27 October 2006 4:05:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 21
  11. 22
  12. 23
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy