# Bomber escapes in burka; burka in hospitals in London.. Are we getting too "politically correct"?



## heidita

Are we going too far with this "political correctness" or is this "freedom " in your opinion?
Aren't we even putting at risk our integrity allowing this kind of _freedom_ in our society?



> ONE of the men accused of trying to murder Londoners two weeks after the 7 July atrocities escaped dressed in a burka, a court heard today.
> He was one of six Muslim extremists accused of making bombs containing chapati flour and bleach to kill commuters on three Tube trains and on a bus,


 
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20070115/ai_n17129746
http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2006-09-05-hospital-gown_x.htm

_



The Daily Express featured the new gown on its front-page Tuesday. But the right-of-center newspaper was critical, arguing that the gown's introduction was an example of "political correctness" and skewed priorities.....
"If people want to live in Britain, then they must accept British standards and the British way of life ... The standard hospital gown is surely good enough for everyone."
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## IlPetaloCremisi

I agree with you!this thing of the "political correct" is going too much far...

We are hiding behind the big word " respect "...and this way we're becoming indifferent towards everything and everyone, even towards who doesnt respect us...cause " we have to respect all the points of view, whatever they are". But as a great teacher said, what is respect? It is "the suspension of the judgment".I can suspend my judgment  in front of something big, that i cannot understand. But nowadays, we suspend our judgment cause we are not able to judge...and this is different! We dont need to judge cause it is somehow become a bad thing, we are taught to respect everything.
But "incapacity of judging what is around us, is in the end incapacity of judging ourselves and this means being at the mercy of whoever doesnt accept me like I am and wants me to be different"...these are the words of this teacher of philofophy who did a conference at my school! I could sign everything he said!


----------



## fenixpollo

Just to be clear, heidita, are you objecting to the use of the burqa? 

If that's the case, my opinion is that I really like my black Iron Maiden concert t-shirts. I have 7 of them -- one for every day of the week. If someone came along to judge my black Iron Maiden t-shirt and said that black Iron Maiden t-shirts are wrong/disruptive/wierd/offensive/unpatriotic and that I should stop wearing them, I would be angry and offended.

I don't like it when people take away my freedom.


----------



## IlPetaloCremisi

I dont really think heidita was saying that...but i could have got it wrong. Let's wait for her.


----------



## heidita

> fenixpollo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, heidita, are you objecting to the use of the burqa?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I am. And very strongly indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> said that black Iron Maiden t-shirts are wrong/disruptive/weird/offensive/unpatriotic and that I should stop wearing them, I would be angry and offended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a good comparison, fenix, in my humble opinion. The burqa is what limits women to live freely. I don't know if this is supposed to be a joke?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like it when people take away my freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Neither do I. that's why I am strongly opposed to wearing a burqa or any other "compulsory" objects, clothes or any item which I do not freely choose to wear and which I should be obliged to wear to walk in the street. This includes the head cover.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kajjo

Hello Heidi,
I would have taken the picture as pure joke if the article had not been so serious. I am still  not sure whether I shall believe in the existence of burka-styled hospital gowns. It is not only ridiculous but contrary to medical necessities anyway. Nurses and doctors should see face colour, eye movement, mouth with saliva and so on not only during an examination, but while doing routine work. Vigilance and observation has saved many lives.

I agree with your scepticism concerning political correctness stuff. Our societies are always made believe that the host has to adapt to the guest -- curiously enough, of course not so when we are the guests in other countries.

I am strongly opposed to cultures having to tolerate everything what guests or immigrants want to do in their country. If they want to live with us, because they like it here, then they need to accept the foundations of our culture. It's what I do when I am guest somewhere else or what I would do when I would decide that I prefer to live somewhere else.

Kajjo


----------



## Sallyb36

It's all very well having respect for other beliefs and cultures, but others should also have respect for the beliefs and cultures of the country they are living in.  I don't mind the wearing of Burkas in everyday life, but in cases this case a hospital gown should have been worn.  I don't think that school teachers should wear them either, as they can appear intimidating even to an adult, never mind to a chikld, and also it obstructs facial expressions which are very important when communicating with children.


----------



## cuchuflete

> ONE of the men accused of trying to murder Londoners two weeks after the 7 July atrocities escaped dressed in a burka, a court heard today.


 and the implication is that the burka/burqa should be banned?



> A security guard of a private hospital was killed while other was injured when armed robbers made their ways to the hospital in day time on Thursday and looted Rs8 million from the staff and fled.
> 
> One of the three armed men was *wearing a police uniform* and entered the hospital in a vehicle with government number plate.
> 
> Three armed robbers entered the Aga Khan Hospital in New Town police limits and looted Rs8 million from the cashier of the hospital, who along with the security staff, was going to deposit the money at the Soneri Bank situated in the premises.
> 
> The robbers intercepted the cashier at gunpoint and on putting up resistance, they shot and killed security guard Sher Mohammed and injured Ibrahim while the cashier escaped unhurt.


 and therefore we should ban police uniforms?




News article source


----------



## Sallyb36

I don't think we should ban either, but the appropriate clothing should be worn in appropriate places.


----------



## cuchuflete

Sallyb36 said:


> I don't think we should ban either, but the appropriate clothing should be worn in appropriate places.


 

<Nodding at Common Sense smiley>


----------



## heidita

> cuchuflete said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the implication is that the burka/burqa should be banned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion the burka should be banned, yes, not only for the reason given, but under no ciscumstances should a woman have to wear a burka. And it should certainly not be allowed in a hospital, under no circumstances.
> 
> Or am I forgetting that they_ really_ want to wear them??
Click to expand...


----------



## heidita

Sallyb36 said:


> It's all very well having respect for other beliefs and cultures, but others should also have respect for the beliefs and cultures of the country they are living in. I don't mind the wearing of Burkas in everyday life, .


 

Do actually women wear burkas in England??? I am stunned!


----------



## Sallyb36

yes but only Muslim women.  And I assume that they want to wear them, or they wouldn't. Not all Muslim women here wear them.


----------



## Outsider

I do not see this as a matter of culture. In some countries, it's against the law to walk down the street covered up, purely for reasons of security. In this case, the suspect used the anonymyty of the burqa to escape from the police; he could have used it to conceal an explosive device.


----------



## konungursvia

fenixpollo said:


> Just to be clear, heidita, are you objecting to the use of the burqa?
> 
> If that's the case, my opinion is that I really like my black Iron Maiden concert t-shirts. I have 7 of them -- one for every day of the week. If someone came along to judge my black Iron Maiden t-shirt and said that black Iron Maiden t-shirts are wrong/disruptive/wierd/offensive/unpatriotic and that I should stop wearing them, I would be angry and offended.
> 
> I don't like it when people take away my freedom.



 Freedom is certainly a very important point, but it is not the issue here. You are overlooking two things. Firstly, an Iron Maiden t-shirt is a typical article of clothing (a t-shirt) emblazoned with a decoration that some, if very few people, might find distasteful. (Personally, I rather like Iron Maiden.) An Iron Maiden t-shirt, however, if you wear them as I think you wear them, cannot hide your identity. Would you go into a bank and approach a teller wearing a balaclava? Secondly, and on the other hand, no religion requires Iron Maiden fans to wear Iron Maiden t-shirts, or even suggests that they have a moral obligation to do so in the name of propriety and perspicacity. So the real issue here is finding a balance between community security and individual freedoms, and the question is, how far should we go to attempt a reasonable accomodation of minority religious practices. It is not an easy question. Personally, I feel it is justified to require all healthy persons to not to cover their faces in public, given the current state of affairs.


----------



## cuchuflete

Shall we also ban parkas in cold climates?  They may be used to conceal explosive devices.

Shall we ban automobiles?  They may conceal bombs?


----------



## Kajjo

Sallyb36 said:


> I don't think we should ban either, but the appropriate clothing should be worn in appropriate places.


I could not agree more. Common sense, as Cuchuflete pointed out correctly.

Kajjo


----------



## fenixpollo

*My responses in blue:*


konungursvia said:


> Freedom is certainly a very important point, but it is not the issue here.
> *Freedom is the ONLY issue here.*
> 
> You are overlooking two things. Firstly, an Iron Maiden t-shirt is a typical article of clothing (a t-shirt) emblazoned with a decoration that some, if very few people, might find distasteful. (Personally, I rather like Iron Maiden.)
> *Many people in my country find them distasteful representations of death and violence, and even of Satanism.*
> 
> Secondly, and on the other hand, no religion requires Iron Maiden fans to wear Iron Maiden t-shirts, or even suggests that they have a moral obligation to do so in the name of propriety and perspicacity.
> *Belief systems are irrelevant. In a free society, we should at the very least tolerate any clothing that does not create a public hazard, break a law or restrict other citizens' freedom.*
> 
> An Iron Maiden t-shirt, however, if you wear them as I think you wear them, cannot hide your identity. Would you go into a bank and approach a teller wearing a balaclava?
> *No, and I imagine that the security guard would ask me to take mine off... and I would. By banning balaclavas (or burqas) for everyone in all situations, you are infringing on the rights of the citizens of a free society.*
> 
> So the real issue here is finding a balance between community security and individual freedoms, and the question is, how far should we go to attempt a reasonable accomodation of minority religious practices. It is not an easy question. Personally, I feel it is justified to require all healthy persons to not to cover their faces in public, given the current state of affairs.


 *He who is willing to trade his liberty for a small security shall have neither.*


----------



## faranji

I don't object to the use of the burqa on any account.

I just find it slightly unfair that some of those who defend their women's right to wear their burqas in the West aren't so vocal when it comes to defend the right of Western women to wear, say, bikinis in some of the countries they hail from.


----------



## Sallyb36

faranji said:


> I don't object to the use of the burqa on any account.
> 
> I just find it slightly unfair that some of those who defend their women's right to wear their burqas in the West aren't so vocal when it comes to defend the right of Western women to wear, say, bikinis in some of the countries they hail from.




I agree entirely.


----------



## Nunty

There has most unfortunately been no shortage of suicide bombers in Israel, both male and female. Not one wore a burka. 

As a former nurse, I think would be most daunting to try to care for a woman if I couldn't  see her skin color, her conjunctiva, the relative moistness or dryness of her lips... However, I also understand the intense discomfort that a woman who is accustomed to "covering" might feel if she could not do so in a public place.

I wear an ankle length religious habit with long sleeves, a collar that covers my neck, a cap that covers my head and which is in turn covered by a waist-length veil. Three years ago this month I was in the hospital for a major operation. In addition to all the usual humiliations and loss of autonomy associated with hospitalization, I felt very exposed and particularly humiliated by having to wear pink pajama trousers and a collarless pajama jacket that was open just below my collar bone. It was modest by usual standards, but not by mine. I cried and cried and when I saw it. (Okay, my reaction also had to do with the surgery I was about to undergo, but only in part.) Things were not helped the next day when a nurse came by and opened the top snap of my pajama jacket to listen to my heart while a male visitor, a priest, was at my bedside. 

What I am trying to say is that my experience on both sides of the bed rail teaches me that we have to find a balance between standard of care and individual sensibilities. When a Muslim woman is in her hospital room and only other woman patients and nurses are present, does she still wear the hospital burka or is it only when she is taking a stroll in the corridor? I don't actually have a problem with the latter, even though I am personally disconcerted by being confronted (faced?) by someone whose face I cannot see.

Common sense, yes, and respect for the individual's priorities. Almost thirty years ago now (yikes!) I wrote a seminar paper on religiosity among Jews, Bahais and Muslims in Iran. I was very, very surprised by the number of Muslim women who told me that they preferred to wear the chador when they were at home in Iran, even though while at university in the US they wore tight jeans and tee shirts and did not cover their hair. The point I want to make is that they say that they _chose_ to wear it, they _preferred_ to wear it. I imagine that a significant number of women who wear the burka in the UK do so by choice, so I find the "they're forced to" argument of little relevance and even somewhat insulting.

It will be interesting to follow-up this story and see how patients and care-givers deal with the hospital burka in the day-to-day.


----------



## Sallyb36

I don't know for sure but would be very surprised to hear that women in the UK were forced to wear a Burka, as not all Muslim women wear them.  I can only assume that the majority of those that do choose to because they want to, and those that don't chose not to.  Maybe I'm a bit naive, I don't know.


----------



## Kajjo

Sallyb36 said:


> I don't know for sure but would be very surprised to hear that women in the UK were forced to wear a Burka, as not all Muslim women wear them.  I can only assume that the majority of those that do choose to because they want to, and those that don't chose not to.  Maybe I'm a bit naive, I don't know.


I guess you are naive in this respect, indeed. We have very many Turkish immigrants in Germany and usually the men decide whether their women wear traditional clothes or Western style. So you see both types of women fashion, but surely it is no free choice in most cases. It is particularly well known, that many girls would like to dress like their German classmates, but are not allowed to do so by their traditional parents. I knew enough of those unfortunate girls personally.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

faranji said:


> I just find it slightly unfair that some of those who defend their women's right to wear their burqas in the West aren't so vocal when it comes to defend the right of Western women to wear, say, bikinis in some of the countries they hail from.


Excellent comment. Tolerance can only work both ways, otherwise it is no real tolerance but abuse allowed by ignorance.

Kajjo


----------



## TRG

cuchuflete said:


> Shall we also ban parkas in cold climates? They may be used to conceal explosive devices.
> 
> Shall we ban automobiles? They may conceal bombs?


 
Actually, we do ban automobiles, but only selectively. As for the burqa banning question, it would seem that one instance of its use for criminal purposes is hardly worth talking about. It could just as well have been any other number of types of dress.


----------



## heidita

It surprises me how easily the western world accepts that a woman should wear a burka, cover her head, walk behind the man because "these are their customs" and we "must respect" them. Why this should be a fact is above me, as the Muslim world doesn't accept even one of _our _customs. 
Any journalist is obliged to wear a head cover when working in the country even though our customs certainly do not include covering the head.

I came across this interesting article, showing Angela Merkel refusing to use a head cover in her latest visit to Saudi Arabia. 

I have also met many girls and women, like Kajjo, who certainly do not use the clothes they choose but the clothes which they are  obliged to use by her husband. 
So, to think a burka is worn _freely_ is not understandable. Who would wear a garment which limits even your view?

I do understand religious reasons. I have nuns among my friends and they are not comfortable with "open" clothes.

In any case if I thought these women wore the burka out of free will, so be it. But I do not.


----------



## Kajjo

heidita said:


> Why this should be a fact is above me, as the Muslim world doesn't accept even one of _our _customs.


Yes and no. We do not need to make the same mistakes, just because the muslim world does. We can be tolerant if we think that is the right thing to to, even if they are not as tolerant to us.

However, I agree with you that the discrepancy between our actual tolerance and that of the muslim world is extremely huge and we should think about whether what we call tolerance might not sometimes be recognised as defeat or submission.

We are allowed to defend our cultural habits, and we can expect that guests behave compatible to our culture, when they in turn expect us to behave properly when being their guests. Just common sense, again, I guess.

Further, I like to point out that the public and political opinion of claimed tolerance is not superimposable with the individual opinions of very many citizens, if not the majority. Again, here is a huge discrepancy between politics and media on one side and the "normal citizen" on the other side.



> I came across this interesting article, showing Angela Merkel refusing to use a head cover in her latest visit to Saudi Arabia.


I can only applaude her. 

Kajjo


----------



## Sallyb36

I have read articles by women who defend their right to wear a burqa, they say that they do it as an act of worship, and that they like the anonymity it gives, as they do not want any man other than their husband to see them, and they want to be appreciated for their mind rather than their face and body.  I was only talking about women in the UK when I said that they wear them because they want to, I do know that in some places they do not have the choice, but here I think a lot of them do have a choice, and still choose to wear them.


----------



## fenixpollo

It's apparent that some women choose to wear a burqa. Prohibiting them from wearing the burqa is an intrusion into their lives and their personal freedom. Just like them, I don't want my government telling me what to wear.

On the other hand, let's assume that some women are forced by male family members to wear the burqa. Prohibiting them from wearing the burqa is still a government intrusion into their lives. Unless you can prove that the burqa is a form of abuse, that it harms the woman in some way -- thereby breaking the law -- nothing can be done about it.


----------



## cuchuflete

Fenixpollo points to an interesting....ummmmmmm...dilemma.

1. Most, but not all of us, believe a woman (a person?) should be free to wear what they wish.
1.a. Therefore a woman who chooses to wear a burqa should be able to do so;
1.b. Therefore a woman who chooses not to wear one should be able to wear something else.

2. A woman may be forced to act against her will in choice of clothing by
2.a. A husband/father/etc who forces her to wear a burqa or
2.b. A government that forces her not to wear one.

Then we can add the societal/cultural overlay of what makes local people comfortable and uncomfortable.
That may, and in time probably will, influence a free-will decision, for most people.

Is it wrong to wear something that most people don't like?  If it is, let's get government to ban pegged trousers,
wide neckties with geometric patterns, men's top hats, cargo pants worn well below the waist....

Where did I leave my tie clip and wing-tips?  Oh, what did you think of all those people wearing biker jackets and leather pants to the opera performance?  They must have been immigrants.  Your friend wears white plastic stiletto heels and a very very very short skirt to the dentist?  How quaint!  There oughta be a law against that sort of thing.  Scares little old ladies.  Did you see those Hare Krishna guys with the shaved heads and saffron colored robes outside the supermarket this morning?  Scaaaaaaaaaandalous, I say!


----------



## maxiogee

fenixpollo said:


> It's apparent that some women choose to wear a burqa. Prohibiting them from wearing the burqa is an intrusion into their lives and their personal freedom. Just like them, I don't want my *???????*  telling me what to wear.
> 
> On the other hand, let's assume that some women are forced by male family members to wear the burqa. Prohibiting them from wearing the burqa is still a *???????* intrusion into their lives. Unless you can prove that the burqa is a form of abuse, that it harms the woman in some way -- thereby breaking the law -- nothing can be done about it.


 
The _problem_ with the burqa is that the intrusion is not always governmental and it can be more than religious.
If the religion of a region demands certain observances, and if not belonging to that religion would be unthinkable, then the required observances are intrusive.

Put it this way - if Qwerty Uiop is a villager who has as much chance of voluntarily leaving her religion as she has of walking on the moon, then it doesn't really matter whether it is the government, her local imams, or just the local village elders who 'require' here to meet the required observances. 

Religion must surely be a voluntary-participation sport, so too must the degree of observance one wishes to engage in.


----------



## robjh22

Someone above said: "that's why I am strongly opposed to wearing a burqa or any other "compulsory" objects, clothes or any item which I do not freely choose to wear..."


How about any clothes at all? Naked on a hot day? How about just shirtless. I'm not joking ... I really have a problem with laws that require women to wear tops on a beach. Bottoms are different. Let freedom ring!


----------



## Nunty

Just to move the conversation to a less politically charged (what? in WR?) arena, here is an analagous and not unrelated situation.

In France, it is forbidden to wear veils in certain public venues, and it is forbidden to wear veils for passport photos. I'm not talking burka, I'm talking veil. To get an idea of what I mean, take a look at my photo. This means that French nuns have to remove their veils, or no passport. Most of the nuns in my Order shave our heads. How humiliating 1) to have to remove the headcovering for a photo 2) that will be seen every time you present your passport, which is very frequent for those who are in monasteries in non-European countries.

I think the analogy is clear enough.


----------



## robjh22

Well, Sister (?), I don't think the idea is to humiliate nuns, but to make sure that people who _aren't_ nuns aren't just pretending to be nuns in order to sneak something dangerous on to an airplane  or a commuter train. As for shaved heads, I don't necessarily find them unattractive. 

Thank you for your service to mankind.


----------



## Nunty

Yes, "Sister" is correct, robjh22 

The idea may not be to humiliate nuns, but that is the effect. How does having a baldheaded nun in a passport picture keep someone from pretending to be a nun for nefarious purposes?

History Corner: In Europe during WWII there were rumors that Germans paratroopers were parachuting into Allied territory dressed as nuns. Real nuns were given permission to grow their hair so that simple veil removal would expose a short-haired German as an imposter. Other days, of course.


----------



## fenixpollo

I believe that the original poster is from Germany and lives in Spain, and that the hubbub about the burqa in this thread is about that garment being worn in European countries. Correct me if I'm wrong. 





maxiogee said:


> and if not belonging to that religion would be unthinkable,


 I was unaware that not belonging to a particular religion was unthinkable -- in any European country.


----------



## Nunty

France is in Europe.


----------



## cuchuflete

Kajjo said:


> Tolerance can only work both ways, otherwise it is no real tolerance but abuse allowed by ignorance.



Read all about what happens when a British woman, an invited VIP speaker at the U.S. Libertarian Party convention, attempts to enter the hall wearing a burqa.  http://www.fitz-claridge.com/node/3

Bring your sense of humor or outrage with you when you visit that site.


----------



## Abu Bishr

Hi Everybody

What I'm about say, I believe, applies to all of us including myself - some, however, more than others. I might not be the right person to say it, but I'll say it nevertheless as I believe that there is a lot of truth in it.

We are all talking about the veil, the hijab (head-covering) and the burka, but we forget about the real veil, the real covering and the real burka. If we are not able to see beyond the veil and see the person and human being behind the veil, then we are ourselves veiled. We might have succeeded in lifting the veils from our faces, but we have failed to lift it from our minds.

Likewise, if all that we see are burkas and not the real people behind or in the burkas, then we are yet to liberate ourselves from cultural bondage for we are entrapped in a burka far heavier and much thicker than the ones that we have seen thus far. We are all trapped in side our own cultural paradigms nay prisons, and until we break out of these prisons then only will we see what others are about.

It's so easy to talk about other people who we don't know as them and us. That already shows that there is a veil or covering or a barrier that prevents us from seeing the other. I believe this veil to be far worse as it only generates and perpetuates ignorance of those behind a flimsy piece of cloth. The only way to remove our veils of ignorance is to learn about others and try to see and experience the world as they do, and we will find ourselves infinitely enriched and more importantly, truly liberated.

Let us take an honest look at ourselves, and ask ourselves what is worse the hijab (covering) that is a piece of cloth or the covering that is our own bias and prejudice. Yes, bias and prejudice especially those rooted in culture, for me, are more blinding than a veil.

By passing judgment on others and their cultural ways, we are in fact only passing judgment on ourselves.

I'm not inviting people (including myself) to change their own lifestyles but merely to try and understand the lifestyles of others. We might say, well they view us the same way as we view them if not worse, then I will say, well that is them but what about you? They are responsible for the way they are, but you are responsible for the way you are.

As I've said, this applies to me as it applies to others if not more. Finally, this is just my own perspective and others are free to disagree with it and even criticize it.


----------



## panjabigator

heidita said:


> In my opinion the burka should be banned, yes, not only for the reason given, but under no ciscumstances should a woman have to wear a burka. And it should certainly not be allowed in a hospital, under no circumstances.
> 
> Or am I forgetting that they_ really_ want to wear them??
> 
> 
> 
> Some actually do wear out of modesty and personal preference.  Though I have my own opinions against it, I guess in this day and age you have to yield and appeal everyone!
> 
> By the way, I think the Burka hospital gown is a bit ridiculous.
Click to expand...


----------



## heidita

Nun-Translator said:


> Just to move the conversation to a less politically charged (what? in WR?) arena, here is an analagous and not unrelated situation.
> 
> In France, it is forbidden to wear veils in certain public venues, and it is forbidden to wear veils for passport photos. I'm not talking burka, I'm talking veil. To get an idea of what I mean, take a look at my photo. This means that French nuns have to remove their veils, or no passport. Most of the nuns in my Order shave our heads. How humiliating 1) to have to remove the headcovering for a photo 2) that will be seen every time you present your passport, which is very frequent for those who are in monasteries in non-European countries.
> 
> I think the analogy is clear enough.


 


robjh22 said:


> Well, Sister (?), I don't think the idea is to humiliate nuns, but to make sure that people who _aren't_ nuns aren't just pretending to be nuns in order to sneak something dangerous on to an airplane or a commuter train. As for shaved heads, I don't necessarily find them unattractive.
> 
> Thank you for your service to mankind.


 
I am sorry, Sister Claire, but I agree with Rob. I do not think it is to humiliate anybody. But then, why not allow to wear glasses, or any other "adornment". Do not think I am making fun of this (like some others have already done), as for me it is really a serious matter.


----------



## maxiogee

Nun-Translator said:


> I'm not talking burka, I'm talking veil. To get an idea of what I mean, take a look at my photo. This means that French nuns have to remove their veils, or no passport. Most of the nuns in my Order shave our heads. How humiliating 1) to have to remove the headcovering for a photo 2) that will be seen every time you present your passport, which is very frequent for those who are in monasteries in non-European countries.
> 
> I think the analogy is clear enough.


 

Surely both being a Nun and shaving your head are personal choices?
The actions involved in attaining each are personal declarations of faith and are not obligatory.
I cannot see how personal choice can turn something into a humiliation.
Humiliation involves shame - what is there to be ashamed of in your personal professions of faith?





fenixpollo said:


> I was unaware that not belonging to a particular religion was unthinkable -- in any European country.


Try growing up in a tightly-knit (sub 'urban') community anywhere in Europe and then try to leave the religion into which you were 'born', without leaving either the family, the family home or even the village.


----------



## Nunty

maxiogee said:


> Surely both being a Nun and shaving your head are personal choices?
> The actions involved in attaining each are personal declarations of faith and are not obligatory.
> I cannot see how personal choice can turn something into a humiliation.
> Humiliation involves shame - what is there to be ashamed of in your personal professions of faith?


I am not referring to our choices. I am referring to the French government requiring the humiliating exposure of removing our veils for the passport photo.
It is not an "adornment". It is a religious garment worn out of modesty. 

Surely you people see the difference???


----------



## maxiogee

Nun-Translator said:


> I am not referring to our choices. I am referring to the French government requiring the humiliating exposure of removing our veils for the passport photo.
> It is not an "adornment". It is a religious garment worn out of modesty.
> 
> Surely you people see the difference???


 
I didn't say it was an 'adornment' - nor did I say anything about your modesty.
However, where does the line get drawn when it comes to personal modesty - and who gets to draw it?
Mme A is comfortable wearing no head-covering at all. 
Mme B is only comfortable wearing a headscarf.
Mme C is only comfortable when no-one can see her skin or any of her hair.

The state requires that a passport be able to identify the person it belongs to, and that the photograph used for this identification should not be alterable - hence no dark glasses, no head coverings, and certain requirements of lighting and background.


----------



## heidita

> Nun-Translator said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not referring to our choices. I am referring to the French government requiring the humiliating exposure of removing our veils for the passport photo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think this is done to humiliate you but why should you have special "favours" as others would surely consider them? the important fact is to recognize you perfectly. Which, in my opinion, apparently in government's opinion the same, cannot be assured.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not an "adornment". It is a religious garment worn out of modesty.
> 
> Surely you people see the difference???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We surely can, Sister, but where should we draw the line? If you are allowed to do so, as a burka is also worn for modesty (that's what was pointed out anyway, even though my personal opinion might differ) why not allow them to wear that, too?
> 
> Why should I not be allowed to wear a hat? I had my head shaved once (for health reasons) and certainly felt tremendously humiliated when a person made me take off my cap at school, I was a school-kid then. But then, nobody was allowed to wear a hat, why should I be?
Click to expand...


----------



## Nunty

maxiogee said:


> I didn't say it was an 'adornment' - nor did I say anything about your modesty.
> However, where does the line get drawn when it comes to personal modesty - and who gets to draw it?
> Mme A is comfortable wearing no head-covering at all.
> Mme B is only comfortable wearing a headscarf.
> Mme C is only comfortable when no-one can see her skin or any of her hair.
> 
> The state requires that a passport be able to identify the person it belongs to, and that the photograph used for this identification should not be alterable - hence no dark glasses, no head coverings, and certain requirements of lighting and background.



Sorry, Tony, I was replying to you and Heidita at the same time. It was she who mentioned "adornment". I should have made that clear.

The French law does not forbid wearing wigs, to which French nuns are now resorting. So tell me why a wig is allowed and a religious head covering is not? Which is the way we usually appear, the way in which we will be most easily identifiable?

This is a new law and it was enacted specifically to prevent Muslim girls from "covering" at school and Muslim adult women, in other places. It was enacted just last year, and there were no bones made about the reasons for it.

It is a malconceived, stupid law enacted against the background of certain specific events in France in the last couple of years. The land of égalité, fraternité and I forgot the other one, has backtracked some.

What does this have to do with the "hospital burka"? Only that it is worthwhile to consider more than just one side of a question. Heidita asked in her opening post, "Aren't we even putting at risk our integrity allowing this kind of _freedom_ in our society," a question with some interesting basic assumptions. I think they are erroneous.


----------



## Abu Bishr

Hi Guys

I did a little bit of internet searching to find the original article as published in Daily Express on which the US Today article seemed to have been based. Here is the link to that article. The article seems to be making more points than the US Today article. Two of the points that stand out for me are: (1) the "inter-faith gown" was the brainchild of a certain Karen Jacob (who had certain concernes) and (2) and I quote "We have had examples of people not showing up for surgeries or operations. This can only help."

Now, for my question(s): Is it wrong for a hospital (any hospital) to introduce a more modest gown for patients who would otherwise not come to the hospital and undergo treatment just because they feel that the normal gown "can show parts of us we do not want on show."? In other words, is the problem with the hospital for trying to help patients (in whichever way they can) just to ensure that these patients get the necessary care and treatment or should these patients pay the price for being too fussy? So if their health deteriorates its their fault for giving preference to their religious convictions or merely to their shyness and modesty over their health. Put differently, should the hospital go out of its way to help (or appease) a group of people who do not even belong in that country? Could the hospital care for "Political Correctness" when it comes to saving the lives of people no matter who or what they maybe or despite their religious convictions?


----------



## maxiogee

Abu Bishr said:


> Now, for my question(s): Is it wrong for a hospital (any hospital) to introduce a more modest gown for patients who would otherwise not come to the hospital and undergo treatment just because they feel that the normal gown "can show parts of us we do not want on show."?


 
Let's get back to a more basic question here.
Why should a hospital provide a gown at all? Some years ago I had veruccas operated on. I was obliged to wear the standard "open at the back, tied with one pair of ribbons" which exposed my rear end whenever I was out of bed. I could see no reason for wearing it, as against say a standard pair of pyjamas, or even a front-wrapping dressing gown.

But to get back to the point, couldn't the hospital give those due to be admitted a description of the clothing requirements and leave it at that. One would then be in a position to meet their needs somewhere along the line from immodest to modest - at a place suitable with one's own comfort level.


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm trying to see all thirty-eight sides of this pile of interrelated issues.  Maybe somebody can help me put a small piece of it in perspective by answering this:

In predominantly Islamic countries, where the burqa and similar costumes are worn frequently, what do the local government authorities require for passport photographs?  Pointedly, can a woman be photographed for a passport in, for example, Saudi Arabia, with her face entirely covered, or with just her eyes showing?

Edit:

Partially answering my own question, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia says this about Business visit visas:



> One (1) recent passport size color photograph with a white                        background; the photograph must be a *full-face view in which                        the visa applicant is facing the camera directly*. Side or                        angled views are NOT accepted.


  That's for foreigners visiting the Kingdom.


----------



## Nunty

I'm not sure that women in Saudi Arabia can have their own passports. Somewhere in the misty reaches of what passes for memory in my mind, there is the idea that I was told that Saudi women can only travel only on a male relative's passport.

If it was ever true, it could well be outdated information.


----------



## heidita

Hasta ahora no se había visto a mujeres vistiendo el burka en Madrid, al parecer sí se veía alguna que otra en Cataluña. Pero ya llegó. He visto esto en el Mundo:



> ha pedido *que se prohiba el uso* de esta prenda en la ordenanza de civismo de la ciudad "por seguridad y dignidad de la mujer", una medida que también se está estudiando en países como Holanda.


 


> Según informa *Ana del Barrio* en EL MUNDO, Plataforma per Catalunya también ha presentado propuestas en cuatro ayuntamientos para prohibir que las mujeres salgan a la calle con el velo islámico que les tapa la cara.


 

Al parecer no estoy sola con la asumpción que es ataca la dignidad de la mujer que lleve este atuendo.


----------



## alexacohen

Hello:
I don't mind the veil or the hijab, but I don't like the burqa at all. I have tried one on, and walked with it for a whole day. I couldn't hardly see at all, and when I asked my friend how did she manage, she said it was equally hard for her to see, to walk and to do her chores wearing it. But her husband and her father would not allow her to step out of her house if she didn' wear it. 
What I really find outrageous is that my country allowed a Religious Authority (religion being XXX) to publish a book in which he explained the better way to beat wives, where to cause them most pain, and where it was less likely that any doctor would find a signal that they had been beaten. The excuse was that it would not be politically correct to ban its publication, as there is freedom of speech in this country.
And I do think there is a line between respecting other cultures and being downright stupid. Beating people, and wives enter into the category of "people", is a crime. And people who come here should abide by our law.
Should be allowed as well that in the name of some religion the sexual organs of a girl can be cut and sewn? Just because it is a custom in their countries? because of political correctness, of course?
(If I've trespassed the limits please moderators delete my post)
Alexa


----------



## Brioche

For some truly idiot political correctness, visit Germany,
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/23/news/germany.php
where a female judge, citing the Koran, in turned down a German Muslim wife's request for a fast-track divorce on the ground that her husband beat her.

The judge said the couple came from a Moroccan cultural milieu in which it is common for husbands to beat their wives. The Koran, she wrote, sanctions such physical abuse.


----------



## alexacohen

A female judge... My God... had she been brainwashed? Why couldn't  she see that, even in the sacred name of political correctess, this was going too far? 
If she wanted to be sooooo politically correct, she could have granted the divorce on the grounds that it is not politically correct to beat a wife.
Alexa


----------



## maxiogee

I would ask a question or two about the marriage.
A 21 year old German woman would, I imagine, have known that a marriage to an Islamic man would be likely to lived under different terms than one to a non-Islamic man.
I wonder if that coloured the judge's decision. A decision I totally reject. How much abuse would she suggest would qualify a person for a divorce?
Maybe, as the previous judge had set a legal distance between husband and wife, she thought the woman should have pleaded desertion!

The remoteness from both everyday life and common sense, which judges in many countries seem to maintain often makes me wonder at the efficacy of legal systems.


----------



## Binapesi

As a muslim, I won't support burqa but I'm also not against to it.
In Turkiye, there aren't many women who wear burqa. The women in Turkiye cover their body and with hijab their hair. But their faces and hands, and if they wish their feet are open. Sure, not with tight clothes. That's what Islam tells. I mean, they dont have to wear a clothe like burqa. But of course, If they wish doing it, then I don't have a right to force them not to wear. None of us has.
I know that some guys force their wives to wear such a clothe. But a real muslim doesn’t force his wife to do this. Of course he wants his wife to be covered but a woman has her own right to choose wearing or not. And we cant deny burqa estranges the person from the sociability. At least when she wears it. Because even her eyes aren't seen when she wears it.


----------



## maxiogee

Keyt said:


> But a real muslim doesn’t force his wife to do this. Of course he wants his wife to be covered but a woman has her own right to choose wearing or not.



But, might the local community put gentle (or not-so-gentle) pressure on them to get her to conform?

I don't believe that _all_ the women who wear the burqa do so either of their own will, or at the request of their husbands. It would appear that many Muslims live in tight-knit communities and any tight-knit community can exert strong, unnoticed pressures on people to be like everyone else and to not breach centuries-old customs.


----------



## Binapesi

maxiogee said:


> But, might the local community put gentle (or not-so-gentle) pressure on them to get her to conform?



A good point. 
Of course, one may be orientated by the local community. But an idealist woman doesn’t fit this until she wants to. At least the situation in where i live is this. There isn’t many women who dont wear hijab in the neighbourhood i live. But they never see it as a compulsion. I know it because they sometimes come together and they talk, you know. 
And we should remember that one doesnt have to change. I mean, there is no such thing that a woman exactly wants to be uncovered. My mother wears hijab happily with her own will and she is a great woman.


----------



## alexacohen

Hello again:


> In other words, is the problem with the hospital for trying to help patients (in whichever way they can) just to ensure that these patients get the necessary care and treatment or should these patients pay the price for being too fussy?


In the town where I used to live, one third of the population practice the Muslim faith. There have been issues about if it was right that pregnant Muslim women covered from head to toe in the burqa, should or should not take out their clothes to allow a female doctor (for a female Muslim there is always a female doctor) to check their babies' health. (I agree that those hospital gowns are humiliating for everybody).
But no doctor can assess anyone's health if the patient is covered with a burqa; and many times the doctors were not allowed even to talk to the patients. It was their _husbands_ the ones who said what their wives felt, and described their symptoms. The wives were not allowed to talk. And with _that _the doctors were suppossed to give a diagnosis.
Crazy!
Alexa


----------



## heidita

maxiogee said:


> I would ask a question or two about the marriage.
> A 21 year old German woman would, I imagine, have known that a marriage to an Islamic man would be likely to lived under different terms than one to a non-Islamic man.


 
True, but this woman was German but born in a Moroccan family. So she was Islamic herself, as far as I know. In any case, no reason to think your husband is going to kill you beating you up every day.




> The 26-year-old woman in this case was not so fortunate. Born in Germany to a Moroccan family


----------



## ElaineG

Shouldn't we distinguish between those things which violate laws of universal application in our countries (wife beating, female genital mutilation, etc.) and things that just bug us (the burka)? 

(Admittedly, France at least has confused the issue by passing laws of universal application designed at targetting specific groups and inadvertently oppressing others (I refer to NunTranslator's posts)).

I fail to see how the burqa violates laws of universal application in my country, at least. I understand that some places in Europe have a "no going around with a mask" law or similar, although I would think that having to disclose yourself to a female law enforcement officer if asked should adequately cover any purported security concerns walking around with your face covered causes. 

But getting upset about a dress code strikes me as strange. My Orthodox Jewish female relatives wear long skirts, dark stockings, a head covering of scarf or wig, and long sleeves, even on the hottest days of summer. To pass a law or otherwise telling them that they had to wear mini-skirts or sleeveless dresses would be like telling me that I have to go topless in public from now on -- a grave affront to their modesty and sense of self. (And I have lived in East Africa, where among many populations who have _not _given into Western preferences, women often go topless. I did not feel the need to conform to that practice merely because I was a (temporary) immigrant to their countries. Indeed, I would have regarded any attempt to force me to wear only a necklace above the waist as severely invasive and I would have left rather than do so).

I imagine _voluntary _burqa wearers have similar feelings.

Justifying outlawing female coverings as an extension of the Western principle of the equality of the sexes doesn't do it for me either. I could make a case that the stiletto heels that I see on young women on the subway every morning are not only the expression of a patriarchal culture that objectifies them as sexual objects but also are likely to cause them severe foot and tendon problems as they age, increasing the costs to society of caring for them. But I don't think a movement to outlaw stilettos would get very far. 

Having known some very educated and sucessful Orthodox Jewish women who conform to some modesty practices you or I might call sexist and oppressive, as well many young stiletto wearing, breast implant getting American-as-apple-pie women, I can say with confidence that a woman's choice to do things that seem clearly representative of victimhood to _me with my values_ may actually be something that she chooses and _not_ the product of spousal or parental abuse.

One of the better parts of this country is usually allowing non-conforming communities -- from Amish, to Hasidic Jews, to Chinese in Chinatowns across the country, to my other relatives the free-love goat farmers in New Hampshire to mind their own business as long as they don't trod too heavily on the rights of others.

I fear that we have lost our way with this a bit with respect to Muslim immigrants because of fear and rage relating to terrorism.

Please note -- my comments are addressed to voluntary burka wearers and similar. As communities, we should encourage and support _safe outreach _facilities (not like that German judge!), optimally womanned by those closest to the communities at issue, where women can seek protection and counseling on their legal rights when they decide to go against immigrant community norms.


----------



## maxiogee

ElaineG said:


> I fail to see how the burqa violates laws of universal application in my country, at least.
> 
> But getting upset about a dress code strikes me as strange.
> 
> Justifying outlawing female coverings as an extension of the Western principle of the equality of the sexes doesn't do it for me either.



I think it is the compulsion to wear it which offends many westerners. The family, social and religious pressure to conform.




> My Orthodox Jewish female relatives wear long skirts, dark stockings, a head covering of scarf or wig, and long sleeves, even on the hottest days of summer.



And this is the nub of the matter - would these women be physically assaulted if they declined to wear such clothing? We in the west have seen women in Islamic countries being beaten for not complying with 'a dress code'.


----------



## chics

Hello all!

The example given by Fenixpollo is not as banal as some of you suggest... a friend of mine, who went to a catholic university, was politement asked to stop wearing metallica T-shirts. If not, he wouldn't pass any exam... And the same to his friends, who wore white or blue shirts but, oh God! they had photograps of musicians on their folders.

Of course it always seems more superficial the things involved to others than to ourselves.

Covering ones head may be usefull when you are 50ºC in the shadow. Besides, I wouldn't like to change my liking, custom and tradition of wearing shirts -or tops, etc.- covering my breast even if I go to live in a country in Africa when women show it.

It's a bad banning someone to wear something as forcing him to wear it. So I'm against both.


----------



## Binapesi

alexacohen said:


> Hello again:
> 
> In the town where I used to live, one third of the population practice the Muslim faith. There have been issues about if it was right that pregnant Muslim women covered from head to toe in the burqa, should or should not take out their clothes to allow a female doctor (for a female Muslim there is always a female doctor) to check their babies' health. (I agree that those hospital gowns are humiliating for everybody).
> But no doctor can assess anyone's health if the patient is covered with a burqa; and many times the doctors were not allowed even to talk to the patients. It was their _husbands_ the ones who said what their wives felt, and described their symptoms. The wives were not allowed to talk. And with _that _the doctors were suppossed to give a diagnosis.
> Crazy!
> Alexa



Then why don't you ask that uncle if Islam lets what he does to her wife? Does Islam let him to put her wife's health into danger? Islamic jurisprudence says a female doctor for a female muslim and a male doctor for a male muslim. But a woman is allowed to be treated by a male doctor if there is no female doctor around or the female doctor isn't as succesful as the male doctor. Sure, a female must search a female doctor firstly. If she cant find, she is allowed. That's what Islam tells. It's nothing but nonsense what those men do. I'm worried that they introduce Islam wrongly.
And sure, she will take off her clothes. Who can treat somebody with just a look? I'd like to be there and punch him on the face.


----------



## alexacohen

Keyt said:


> Islamic jurisprudence says a female doctor for a female muslim and a male doctor for a male muslim. But a woman is allowed to be treated by a male doctor if there is no female doctor around or the female doctor isn't as succesful as the male doctor. Sure, a female must search a female doctor firstly. If she cant find, she is allowed. That's what Islam tells. It's nothing but nonsense what those men do. I'm worried that they introduce Islam wrongly.


That's why I pointed out that there is always a female doctor for a female Muslim patient. The Islamic faith has been stablished in South Spain for many, many years. But these men (and let's forget about their faith because stupid and pigheaded people are quite common in all faiths) should be told that mistreatmen of women can't be done in Spain. But not by me, or any other person. They should be told by the country authorities. Authorities should not be silent because of political correctness! 
Alexa
P.S. No one thinks these men represent the Islam faith. The only thing they represent is their own ignorance.


----------



## ElaineG

maxiogee said:


> I think it is the compulsion to wear it which offends many westerners. The family, social and religious pressure to conform.
> 
> As I pointed out in my prior post, there are a lot of pressures to conform besides the burqa.  Try showing up at my office without a suit and tie, if male!  You won't get beaten, but you will lose your job.
> 
> As I said, if we actually care about people in these communities, and aren't just venting some hidden anti-Muslim sentiment, we can work to provide safe havens and education for girls and women who feel like moving beyond their family strictures.  And we can always, as I said, enforce laws of universal application, like not beating your wife/children.
> 
> 
> And this is the nub of the matter - would these women be physically assaulted if they declined to wear such clothing? We in the west have seen women in Islamic countries being beaten for not complying with 'a dress code'.
> 
> My post was quite clearly about Western countries, and Western communitites getting hysterical about Muslim modes of dress and frothing that they are a) a security threat or b) an inherent oppression of women or c) some sort of dilution of "our" wonderful cultural and societal values.
> 
> I wish deeply that institutionalized violence against non-conforming women was not sanctioned in some Islamic countries.  I believe that as Westerners, we can offer our dollars/euros, moral and logistical support for Islamic feminist/women's organizations that seek to broaden women's options and legal rights.  But getting hysterical -- as I often see in the American, UK and Italian press-- about a form of dress will not win "the hearts and minds" of anyone.


 
As for whether an orthodox Jewish woman could be beaten for not complying with modesty codes, wife beating is not sanctioned by any normal strain of Judaism.  Which is not to say it doesn't exist.  But a woman from a highly Orthodox community who chose to rebel against modesty codes would be shunned, and the familial pressure to conform would be enormous.


----------



## maxiogee

ElaineG said:


> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is the compulsion to wear it which offends many westerners. The family, social and religious pressure to conform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out in my prior post, there are a lot of pressures to conform besides the burqa. Try showing up at my office without a suit and tie, if male! You won't get beaten, but you will lose your job.
Click to expand...

(Yikes how I hate trying to quote when people put their comments into a quote!!)

But the guy join your office (a) voluntarily, (b) aware of the dress code and (c) as an adult. He is also free to tout his talents on the job-market in search of a different 'community' into which he can fit in comfort.




=ElaineG said:


> And we can always, as I said, enforce laws of universal application, like not beating your wife/children.


But we can only enforce those in our own jurisdictions, and even then we see idiots like the German judge being free to reject that law. I don't know about other countries, but our judges are tamper-proof. The are very difficult to influence in matters like this (we have frequent instances of daft, anti-commonsense decisions) and even more difficult to discipline when a government decides on a crackdown on certain offences. They have incredible security in their office - and rightly so, to disincline those politicians who might wish to not only make the laws but to control those who administer it.




ElaineG said:


> My post was quite clearly about Western countries, and Western communitites getting hysterical about Muslim modes of dress and frothing that they are a) a security threat or b) an inherent oppression of women or c) some sort of dilution of "our" wonderful cultural and societal values.


I've no problem with that, except for the inherent suppression bit. I think there is a huge 'suppression' of women involved in this. They are to cover up so as to not inflame men? Men are not to be obligated to any self-control which might allow a woman to walk around as openly as, and equal to, a man?




ElaineG said:


> I wish deeply that institutionalized violence against non-conforming women was not sanctioned in some Islamic countries. I believe that as Westerners, we can offer our dollars/euros, moral and logistical support for Islamic feminist/women's organizations that seek to broaden women's options and legal rights.


Agreed, but more important in my mind is getting the Islamic women who are already in the West, to be at a point where they can tell their mothers and sisters 'back home' that there is a way of modifying Islam so that it less stringent on them - and that they have achieved this in the West. And for _that_ to happen they need to be aided and abetted by everyone in the west. We need to stop seeing Islam and start seeing people.



ElaineG said:


> But a woman from a highly Orthodox community who chose to rebel against modesty codes would be shunned, and the familial pressure to conform would be enormous.


That's where the debate needs to start - modesty. We in the West are not in a great position to start any debate on modesty, its merits and its limitations.


----------

