Quote:
Originally Posted by Slims
So again it's a secular issue whose supporters often hide behind the banner of religion.
We don't allow Janes to run around in the US butt naked. It is pefectly reasonable and normal to enforce basic societal standards of dress.
If the Burkha is seen as a symbol of oppression (which it is), and there is evidence it is being used for nefarious purposes, then it is perfectly OK to ban it's use.
|
Is it oppressive? To who? to you?
Oppression is a subjective term based on the culture/religion/environment that the people live in. You may see it as oppressive, but women who wear it out of choice have claimed liberation from societial pressures. I find it amusing that the west had just jump on the bandwagon hoping to liberate the muslim women from their own 'oppressive' choices. Forcing a blanket legislation on an entire group on society can only drive them underground. It's no different from a muslim country forbidding the drinking of alcohol. Rumour has it that saudi has a massive alcohol blackmarket run by expats. It's going to happen regardless.
So where will the line be drawn next? No hijabs? No Abayas? no eastern clothing?
As for the nefarious purposes, do you mean armed hold ups? cheating in exams? again, the term nefarious is subjective. being evil, sinful or wicked in one country is not necessarily nefarious somewhere else.
im not sure what you mean by that comment, but most of these scenarios can be negated without handing down an all encompassing law. Giving the shop owners the right to refuse entry, or not allowing the woman to sit in exams until they have identified themselves properly are suitable ways to have people get in line with the idea of identification for security purposes.