Liz45,

You avoided the question. Do you believe as radical feminists and some of the socialist left do, that women must demand the right to wear burqas? They say that demanding the right to wear the burqa is 'essential' to liberation.

World-wide, there is consensus that the burqa is a potent, enduring symbol of subjugation and violence affecting both women and men ('men' don't benefit, a few religious zealots do) and as such is an affront to our core beliefs and values.

While I don't support a ban - why give extremists oxygen and a cause celebre - the burqa should not be encouraged and government agencies, business and the public generally should not be forced to make concessions for it.


rache, "of all the Muslim women in France, only a few hundred of them wear the burqua. Of those, 85% were recent converts to Islam and therefore adopted the practice voluntarily."

It is a mistake to believe that fundamentalism is restricted to men.

The worry is what children they raise because in modern times the radicalism that is so often blamed on Muslim migrants is in fact 'home grown' and the offenders are not of Muslim cultural background at all.

<In the 9/11 world and in the immediate aftermath, the theory was and the reality was that a terrorist attack, if it were to occur again on U.S. soil, would be someone coming from abroad and coming in to the United States," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said. "That paradigm has changed, and there are now individuals in the United States, some who have grown up here and are American citizens. ... They haven't done anything to violate the law, but yet they have become radicalized to the point of violent extremism and to the point of ... considering coming back to the homeland and conducting an attack of some sort.">

from CNN Justice Report May 11, 2010
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-11/justice/vinas.cruickshank.analysis_1_qaeda-pakistani-taliban-terrorist?_s=PM:CRIME

Further to that, I referred in my previous message to the tiny minority living in France (and other Western countries) who wear the burqua for cultural reasons. However on the whole it appears to be a wilful display intended to stir up unrest, by people whose mentality is such that they do not understand the implications of their actions. Like David Hicks who until apprehended appeared to be living life as if it was a bizarre adventure fantasy disconnected from reality, without considering the implications for himself, his family or his own country.

For some to wear the burqua could be a symptom of a social malaise and or alienation. Many appear to be taking a stand against Western values and consumerism - like those who demonstrate at G20 and World Trade organisation meetings. While there is some foundation for opposing consumerism and corruption that creates havoc to the environment and disadvantaged communities, I doubt burqua wearers fully understand (given their Western enculturation) the oppression this bizarre practice represents. Perhaps they are seeking to withdraw from Western societyby this gesture; although we can all reduce consumerism and live simpler lives without having to wear disguises.

Also, lateral I know, regarding opponents of free trade and economic liberalism, I doubt they have anything constructive to offer in their place, given how far global trade and foreign relations has gone down this path amongst all developed countries, wherby the functioning of these systems and the participating economies depend on it.

To step back from market based principles and consumerism now could invite economic collapse on a global scale, which may be on the cards anyway. For those who survive, this may present an opportunity to build a fairer system out of the ruins although I doubt that what amounts to a bizarre fashion statement representing extremist political ideals (as with punk rock, death metal etc), will make a jot of difference to how things turn out; nor will it contribute to making the world a better place, on the contrary.

Spelling Wars, episode 17 of the ultimate saga.

For all those who’ve contributed to a thoroughly intriguing discussion on dress codes, law and liberties, I apologies for contributing to what is so tangential to the discussion at hand. (As many reach for their dictionaries, let’s hope and pray that tangential was spelt correctly).

Dear Pericles,
Thank-you for your scrutiny of my posts. I welcome it. By analysing and correcting each other we all advance, which is, I think, the function and purpose of this website.

We have come to the conclusion that exponential is spelled correctly with an N in the middle, and never a D.

For any other statements of mine containing the word exponential, but spelled with a D, those statements were made in error. The exceptional case of the exponential function which derivates onto itself should be spelled with an N. And likewise, in its entirety, the more general family of exponential functions must also be spelled with Ns in the authorised spelling.

I made those statements in good faith, thinking at the time that they were correct. This is otherwise known as “offering your opinion”, which is what we do on this website.

On deeper investigation, I noticed that all other occasions where exponential was spelled with a D (including those engaged in fairly high level mathematics) were in rather informal discussions, where people were not particularly concerned to conform to authorised spelling, but were only otherwise engaged in communicative endeavour.

As for my comment about what I remember being taught in school, I hope that I haven’t brought my high school into disrepute. In their defence, I would add that they emphasised the practical aspects of maths, and tried to teach us the proper use and manipulation of numbers and their appropriate algebraic symbols. Rarely or ever did our maths teachers test us in prosaic writing or for our spelling capacities.

Several times you’ve asked, “What does this say about me?” I would hope it says I want to be swayed by good argument, and not just go with the crowd.

Thanks again.

Rusty,
You accuse me of being aloof. Here’s a tip for you: If you don’t like the tone of my writing, then don’t bother reading it.

It’s apparent (by your own admission) that what is getting your goat is that my writing might have some persuasive aspect to it that is in difference to your own worldview, or might be challenging to your perspective.

What is clear to anyone reading this thread, or even your last few posts, is that you don’t like me. It seems that the only reason you have joined with this discussion is to badmouth me. Was there any other reason?

As I said to Pericles, I welcome anyone to scrutinise my posts or anyone else’s. For that is how we progress here.

So scrutinise what I say. But don’t make up stuff about what I haven’t said.

Recently, you have made some vague allegation(s) against me (I don’t even know what), for which it is apparent you cannot substantiate or even reference when challenged.

If I am ‘aloof’, that is no reason to call me a liar. If my son makes a spelling error tonight when he’s doing his homework, I do not degrade him by calling him a liar (not unless I want him to treat me cruelly when I ‘m old).

If Pericles makes an error by saying that expediential is not a real dictionary word, we don’t call him a liar. It’s just an honest mistake.

Understand?

Generally in such forums there are rules about sticking to the topic rather than making personal references. Spelling and conceptual errors are widespread and need to be tolerated and forgiven.

While it can be helpful to understand the values and motives that cause people to take up certain positions - to know who is speaking - the cues are restricted when one has not met a person in the flesh and does not know their background.

It seems preferable therefore when participating to reserve making harsh judgements about a person's character in the absence of proof.

PERICLES-<However the the law would be used to stop them if they persisted. Which Law?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or did you just not read my post fully when I detailed what law would be used against them.

Again I never said it was more offensive than wearing the KKKoutfits or the German uniforms in public areas. I said it created the same unease and for the same reasons.

<Veiled Muslim women do not have a history of violence.>
There have been cases of suicide women bombers wearing those robes although as you say they don’t have a history of it. It is the violence and oppression symbolised by the garment itself more so than the women who wear it that makes people regard it with distrust. Men who commit violence and terrorist acts against the West in the name of the Islamic religion who have caused the garment to be associated with violence.