lolwhut? Religious people already claim clothing is in their face and ban them from their buildings and countries. Just wear a Slayer shirt to a mosque or church and they will boot your ass out. Follow their logic is more like it.
This is not analagous at all to what I described. Every place has some measure of what is considered to be good manners or not. A mosque, chuch and religious buildings are a kind of a limited public/private property. They have some rules for what they considering to be offensive/acceptable clothing or not. That is perfectly within their rights, since often it is a private building(though even some public buildings have rules; school). For example, just like most people wouldn't tolerate me walking into their homes nude, and then proceeding to masterbate, religious people also have some standards on their property. You are still welcome to wear your Slayer shirt on your own private property or public property. Furthermore, just like religious people with their buildings, you also have the right to not tolerate hijabs, crucifixes etc. on your private property.
Nobody is exempt from a pat down, but a person can refuse to show their face because? Covering your face is the main issue. If people were dressing up like ninjas, it would be the same argument.
I find the TSA to be excessive, quite unnecessarily so, but if you read what I said before, I have no problems with officers and other authority figures being given the authority to demand that women who addorn their burqas take them off for identification/security purposes. I only oppose a full ban, that too, only for practical reasons.
When did I equate women in Burqa's to terrorists? I didn't say that and don't put words in my mouth. I said it was a symbol of oppression and I'm fully aware of why middle eastern women wear them. Being taught at an ealry age that modesty is the best policy and wearing that full garb will keep prying eyes away. But it doesn't make it true. In fact it would do the opposite in western societies. Since seeing a women walk by you in a bee keeper suit would generally make anyone do a double take, and have them wondering what is underneath all that.
You wrote earlier in this thread(this is the same quote I was responding to):
"Nothing in Islam requires turning females into shapeless, faceless zombies; good sense calls for modesty itself to be modest. The time has come everywhere to ban from public places these hideous, unhealthy, socially divisive,
terrorist-enabling, and criminal-friendly garments.[...] "
Now it is possible that I could have misunderstood, but you are singling out the burqa for being "ciminally" friendly, when it could easily be applied to any garment that conceals.
I should speak from personal experience: I have encountered women who wear burqas plenty of times in my life(yes, even here in Canada), and I have never been frightened. Though, I admit that my anecdote is not representative of others.
As for the burqa, it is to prevent(presumably) sexual inclinations, and given the recent fear mongering towards the burqa, I hardly doubt people now a days find women in burqas to be sexy. It is still an oppressive tool, but a very sucessful one, it basically cages women down and bars them from interacting with other males in any way that could be physically or sexually stimulating or meaningful.
Blanket statements are for placating the masses, if you don't speak in soundbites you don't get heard.
Nothing I have said is a blanket statement. The vast majority of immigrants that come to the West, indeed come here out of immense need rather than choice. The ones that come here out of choice are perhaps youth who are already assimilated into the Western pop culture-- they assimilate completely. The ones who don't are
Don't insult my intelligence.
I have done no such thing, I have however, insulted the intelligence of that
attitude and statement. I even extended the benifit of doubt to you(while highlighting the alternative), precisely, because I *don't* know you.
I'm fully aware of coloniallism and it's effects. I am an aboriginal and I don't need a history lesson on coloniallism since I am part of the history.
That doesn't contradict what I said. Simply because you are an aboriginal doesn't mean that you are as empathic towards other sufferers of colonialism as you should be -- which is evident by a statement such as "Assimilate or GTFO", the latter of which being highly brazen. To assume that you are empathic towards other minorities just because you are Aboriginal, would be highly racist of me. It is kind of like that Prop 8 thing, where people were shocked that Blacks voted against another minority(Gays) in overhwhelming numbers(some 70%), the implication being that if you are Black, you *must* support other minorities.
What colonillism did get right, was bringing people into the next century and turning other culture into modern society. Albeit for their own benefit. But you take the good with the bad.
Colonialism was indeed a progressive force in history, in terms of technological progress, but it was progressive for people like you and me(Westerners). It caused massive misery and savegery(ironically the thing it set out to eliminate) in the rest of the world. For example, India didn't benefit very much(if at all) while England become much more wealthier and idustrialized as a result of that colonial relationship. Furthermore, I wasn't just talking about colonialism, but also neo-colonialism, which *can't* even be justified on technological grounds (unlike old colonialism, which can), it is simply exploitation. For an easy example, see the UFC(United Fruit Company) in 1954 in their ventures in Latin America, specfically Guatemala.
The burqa itself is a symbol of innequality. Do we still make women wear a Scarlet letter because o something they did? Do we stil believe in witches? I'd like to think not.
I am not quite sure why you would bring this up. I am assuming you are stating that Western culture has advanced past Eastern one. If this is the case, I don't see how this is relevant. Cultures and progress across the world do not happen in tandem, some people get certain things first. That isn't significant. The Eastern World is behind us, socially and perhaps politically, by perhaps 50-150 years, which in the span of time is not even a blink of an eye.
Part of the reason why the Eastern World is so underdeveloped is because the West, after colonizing and exploiting the East, in post-colonial times, OPPOSED secular nationalims(you know the kind that would modernize the place), and actually supported radical fundementalism. Examples of secular regimes that the West actively worked in destroying in the East include Mossadegh(1953) in Iran, Nasser in Egypt, arguablly Bhutto in Pakistan and so fourth. At the same time, radical Islamic fundementalists that the West actively SUPPORTED(the West also supported such people in actively radicalizing the area) include Zia-ul-Haq, the Shah of Iran, the Taliban and so fourth. So in the case of the Islamic World, the West has actually actively PREVENTED modernization and secularization while supporting fundementalism. On the matter of colonialism, for the most part it enriched the West and other Empires while having terrible consequences for the other peoples of the World.
The burqa is an expression of inequality, and the telling evidence is that the men do not have their vision blurred by a square of mesh. But we don't need evidence when the express purpose of the burqa is to protect the honour of men by preventing other men glimpsing their women. Few people in our global community are more isolated in the world beyond their front door than the woman within the burqa, yet we justify our tolerance of this medieval imposition by describing its wearing as a matter of choice for the woman. But we know that the woman has, effectively, no choice, that to refuse to wear the burqa she would have to defy her culture, religion and the men who rule her life.
This is not completely true. I have already expressed my distaste for the burqa for the obvious reasons. However, no one here, or anyone that I know regard the burqa as a matter of choice, it clearly isn't. We only tolerate it because out of concern for the women, who might suffer a far harsher fate if the burqa is completely banned. Partial tolerance of the burqa is not out of deference for the arhaic and oppressive culture the burqa represents, but rather a pragmatic and realistic move, nothing more. It has nothing to do with tolerating antiquated forms of sexism. I am sure there are some liberals in some corner of the world that have fooled themselves into think this is a matter of "multiculturism" or "tolerance", but I do not belong to that group, nor do I share their values on this subject.
The burqa is offensive to our national principles of equality and on that basis alone should be banned. Humanitarian reasons should add urgency to that banning.
I oppose the complete banning of the burqa on the basis of pragmatic *humanitarian* grounds.
But hey, thats too bad you left your homeland, but guess what; your new country has a whole different set of values, so could you kindly ingratiate yourself into you new culture. If not, please fuck off.
As I mentioned previously, the reasons for this are far more complex and nuanced than you understand them to be.
