You're right Severin, they don't women's feet in China any more. Of course, that is only because the government made it illegal, I guess they banned it, you could say.

Hasbeen

I would posit that 'foot-binding' became culturally unacceptable long before the dictatorship of communism.

After all, corsets were not criminalised.

A question; why would you prefer to give extremist fundy Muslims another 'cause' to rally around?

As I have noted, restrictive clothing for women is being seen more of an anachronism as more women are regarded as equals. Even those women who favour the stiletto heel, tend to wear runners before donning the injurious shoes. Personally, I believe that certain attire is best worn in the bedroom - but that's just my personal choice.

I'm reminded of the two suicide bombers dressed in burqas who, last month, entered a camp and killed 41 refugees and wounded 62 others who had fled to 'safety' in the north west of Pakistan.

Scores of children have been indoctrinated and coerced into wearing the burqa to become suicide bombers so what sane Muslim would wear a WMD to the supermarket?

The problem with Islam is not merely the tyrants who’ve hijacked the burqa, but the average Muslims who've failed to denounce these atrocities, retreating into self-pity and victim hood.

Protagoras,
What the?
Muslims didn't denounce violence caused by extremists?

If you google you will find that hordes of muslims denounced it, but it's just not something the media focuses on!

Oh no! They rather stigmatise all muslims for the actions of a few.

Protagoras: << The problem with Islam is not merely the tyrants who’ve hijacked the burqa, but the average Muslims who've failed to denounce these atrocities, retreating into self-pity and victim hood. >>

Nice to see that dickie's dropped the disingenuous argument about the supposed problems of the deaf communicating with women in burqas, in favour of her real Islamophobic agenda.

divine_msn: << If motorcycle helmets, balaclavas, bandanas tied across the face etc are deemed security risks then so is the burqa. If the identity of a person must be established for whatever reason - legal, medical, travel etc, the burqa is a problem. >>

None of those items of clothing are illegal to wear in public. However, businesses, government agencies etc quite reasonably require that they are removed before the wearer is allowed into their premises. As I and other have suggested, treating the burqa the same way is all that is required.

I don't like the burqua or what it stands for from my Western POV, but rather than banning the burqua which would be a great intrusion by government on dress code, why not just ban the FORCED wearing of the burqua and where there are the usual security considerations already discussed.

No matter what we might think of the cultural/religous significance of the burqua, banning an item of clothing is only divisive and goes against secular democratic thinking.

It is no different to some of the unusual dress codes pushed by some Christian sects demanding women to wear head scarves or where they are not permitted to cut their hair.

It is bizarre to me that some cultures and religions see modesty in terms of hair and face coverings, however these are matters for those who follow the religion. More and more Muslim women and men are also calling for the burqua to be banned and who see it as a distorted interpretation of the Koran - as representing the extremes of Sharia Law. In more secular Muslim countries like Turkey the burqua is not forced on women.

I see it as very much a matter for Muslims, particularly Muslim women, to sort out for themselves. People forget that most Muslim women do not wear the burqua.