In the burqa obsession of the West, I guess this was just a matter of time. The Belgium Parliament backed a draft law that would ban Muslim women from wearing the burqa in public places.
Of course the reason for the coming ban is for safety reasons; the Belgians say people who hide their faces represent a security risk. For political cover, the law will also target demonstrators who cover their faces.
I can’t help but think; what a bunch of hypocrites!
Freedom-touting Europe is now telling Muslim women what cloths they cannot wear and calling it a security risk. Let’s call it what it is, a ban on burqa is not a security issue but a cultural issue. If it is a security issue, should you ban motorcycle helmets with faceguards? In fact from what I read of the ban, which makes it illegal to wear clothing that covers all or part of the face, wouldn’t the traditional nun habit be ban as well? The veil and wimple cover the side of the face, doesn’t it?
Here in Singapore, we walk past Muslim women who cover their head and sometimes face with veils and there’s absolutely no problem here. There are far more Muslims here then in Europe, yet somehow headscarves have also been outlawed in schools in Holland and U.K, and Switzerland created a law to ban building minarets on mosques, despite having just 4 minarets in the whole of Switzerland!
I mean what’s the big deal with the burqa anyway? It’s a piece of cloth used to cover women…so what? I seem female Westerners sunbathing nude in Singapore before but I never asked the Singapore government to ban sunbathing. I mean think about it; what’s the use of sunbathing anyway?
If Europeans want to ban the burqa, fine but call it what it is. The ban is not due to security, but due to fear.
13 comments:
You've got it right, it's the F word, but it's not fear. It fanatic feminism.
Yeah.. I agree.. just as women should be given the right to wear burqas in secular Europe.. people should be given the right to walk around nude in Islamic countries.
I'm afraid some people may have mistaken my post for something else.
Whether it is correct to ban the burqa in Europe is in my view beside the point. The main thing is that if there is a ban, call it what it is. It's a ban due to fear and culture. Security got nothing to do with it and those guys in Belgium are hypocrites if they say otherwise
You misunderstood my response. I am saying that hypocrisy lies everywhere in western societies and in Islamic societies as well...sigh
Uh…Islamic societies want their women to cover up due to modesty, social, and religious obligations. They are pretty open about why they want their women to cover up. Where’s the hypocrisy in that?
The justification is irrelevant as you can also justify not covering up in a western society whether it is hypocritical or not.
What is relevant is that whatever society you go to, you have to follow the rules that you go to. I can't walk around naked in the streets in Saudi Arabia. For girls try walking in the streets in a mini-skirt in those societies.
If you cry foul over the fact that western society imposes a dress code in their society while defending the fact that Islamic society also impose a dress code for visitors..
well that is what I would call a double standard.. maybe even downright hypocritical.
"Freedom-touting Europe is now telling Muslim women what cloths they cannot wear and calling it a security risk".
Hypocrisy is saying one thing (touting freedom), doing another (telling Muslim women what cloths they cannot wear), and then claiming their actions are for a third higher cause (security). That's hypocrisy.
Islamic countries never pretend to be beacons of freedom and are open about why they want women to cover up. Where's the hypocrisy there?
"Islamic countries never pretend to be beacons of freedom and are open about why they want women to cover up. Where's the hypocrisy there?"
So the very thing (freedom) Muslims are denying in their own societies/culture, they are demanding when they are in the west. That is hypocrisy.
Both cultures are hypocritical.. just in different ways.
The hypocrisy comes from the INCONSISTENCY in behaviour-asking for rights but denying it to others...
Maybe I wasn't clear, I am talking about muslim groups who try to protest for their rights in the west. As someone who has lived in Europe in the past, I have seen many hypocritical examples of these groups.
If they are truely consistent as people ,who don't believe in freedom, then they shouldn't be protesting anywhere in the first place.
Mr Ghost
Mr Skeptic is a militant atheist.
Does that clear your doubts?
That is an under-the-belt tactic. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
I am a theist, and I still agree with Mr Skeptic.
Double standards in a form of hypocrisy because if we set a standard, we should also follow it.
Rebut his points, not his (non)-religious beliefs. Otherwise, theists can also expect to be attacked, based on beliefs instead of the merit of our arguments.
I am sorry but the inconsistency leads to the hypocrisy. Your definition seems to be different from what one generally uses.
Hypocrisy is expecting other people to behave in a way you don't normally behave.
I am not going to comment further because you don't seem to agree with me on the meaning of the word.
Ok. Guess we have to agree to disagree on this
Post a Comment