NZ Muslims
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:40 am by David FarrarTerrific to see a decent jail term for the Dunedin man who abused a Muslim woman at a bus-stop, and then followed her to a book-store. Such behaviour is repulsive.
More difficult is the issue of Muslims complaining they are enduring longer inspections at airports. While it would be wrong to have a blanket policy to target everyone of a particular group, it is near inevitable that profiling would include a greater number of Muslims. Just as young single men have traditionally also usually attracted greater attention from border control agencies.
Less controversial, and praise-worthy, is the proposal for local Muslim associations to vet new members, to minimise the possibility of infiltration from radical or criminal factions.
November 23rd, 2005 at 9:44 am
If muslims have a problem with inspections, they can stay home. No one is forcing them to come here.
And it is time we forbid the burkhah, we’re getting too many fully covered up people here. It’s degrading and dangerous.
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 9:52 am
Berend – shouldn’t you be hiding under a bridge somewhere?
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 9:57 am
BdB,
What exactly is degrading about being “fully covered up” – as long as it is your choice to do so? Does it degrade you perhaps, do you prefer the short singlets and low-rider hipsters as less-degrading alternatives?
Perhaps it is time to forbid the business suit, the priest’s habit, jeans and hooded sweatshits, …
Dangerous – you mean in that it could get caught on a passing car don’t you.
So much for civil liberty – the opinions that you espouse are something that I would expect to hear from our dictatorial Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 10:21 am
Interesting to note that the fellow in Dunedin was not (according to the article) sentenced for any of the abuse against either of the muslim persons, but for other offences such as threatening to kill (a threat apparently issued against the police), assault (on the bus driver), and possession of a cannabis pipe.
Sam, if you could find slaves who agreed that slavery was OK, would you agree that it was ?
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 11:00 am
Ed, lefties are always so predictable. Supposedly they are for women’s rights. Except where muslims are concerned. Pologamy, forced marriages, beating, covering up as a sign you’re just worth half a man, it’s all ok.
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 11:11 am
Ed Snack,
Slavery is a condition of control over a person against their will, enforced by violence or other forms of coercion… (Wiki)
By agreeing that their slavery is ok they become volunteers rather than slaves. I would agree with their right to work under the control of another person with little or no pay, and harsh conditions if that was their preference. If they choose not to, or do not have the ability to make a choice then that is a different matter altogether – same for Burkhahs.
Would you take the right for someone who enjoys being beaten and tortured by a consenting partner in order to attain sexual satisfaction?
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 11:32 am
dim
As much as I find the blatant demonising of Islam as both ignorant and dangerous…at the same time we it is easy to forget that if my partner and I were to go to most Islamic countries, and dress or behave inappropriately (Allah forbid she sunbathed topless on a beach somewhere)…we would be treated very rudely at best, likely with a few well aimed stones as well.
Personally I have no problem with someone practising a religion in private, but when in public, the correct thing is to observe local custom. I have no particular problem with wearing no clothes at all, but I confine it to places where it is not customary.
By complete contrast I find the burkhah a totally unacceptable custom. Incidentally it has NOTHING to do with the Koran or the religion per se. It arose about 300 or 400 years ago in a particuarly fundamentalist Persian city (I’m hazing on the details) purely as a local religous custom. There is no justification for it in the Koran, nor the Hadith. It was not prevalent in the early centuries of the Islamic era, and the roots of the “purdah” customs are much more widely distributed in Middle Eastern culture generally than specifically Islam.
The trouble is that in the minds of the ignorant, much that is exceedingly retrogressive about macho male dominated Middle Eastern culture, and Islam have become closely entwined. In its early essence Islam clearly progressed the rights of women, but tragically fundamentalists have perverted much of that in recent centuries.
In a nutshell, yes I defend the right to freedom of worship, but I also defend our rights as New Zealanders to define what is acceptable cultural behaviour.
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 11:35 am
>I have no particular problem with wearing no clothes at all, but I confine it to places where it is not customary.
ooops I meant:
By contrast I have no particular problem with wearing no clothes at all, but I confine it to places where it is customary.
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 11:51 am
“And it is time we forbid the burkhah, we’re getting too many fully covered up people here. It’s degrading and dangerous.”
Personally I fucking hate wearing suits. They’re hot, uncomfortable and totally unsuited to the local climate except in winter. But I have to do it regularly, because the circles I move in expect it and I will be looked down upon if I show up wearing anything else. Now, explain to me the difference here? Other than that it’s an Evil Islamic Custom, rather than an Englishtened British Custom.
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 11:52 am
Wtf? Wearing a bland, modest cultural/religious garb is UNACCEPTABLE? Being forced to wear it is unacceptable. Wearing it in itself is not, unless you live in freaking totalitarian China. People can wear whatever the heck they like. (Nudity has everything to do with private parts and nothing to do with costume.)
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 11:57 am
Logix, I wonder what gives you the mandate to “define what is acceptable cultural behaviour” on behalf of New Zealander’s with your personal opinion. Clearly to you and the Dunedin man the Burkhah has no place in this country – that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. You can then lobby to have this opinion recognised by law by securing a popular (or otherwise) mandate. Until then you are blowing hot air in attempting to speak for New Zealander’s who, by and large, are noted for their open and inclusive society.
Incidentally, the fact that the burkhah has NOTHING to do with the Koran has NOTHING to do with this debate.
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 12:04 pm
The wearing of the burkhah is nothing to do with modesty, and everything to do with enforcing an extreme form of patriarchal oppression.
As you rightly say, the issue surrounding nudity is culural attitudes about the exposure of the private parts, not the costume (or lack of) per se. The same logic applies to the burkhah, but at the opposite extreme…it has nothing to do with the costume per se, but about the cultural attitudes that surround it.
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 12:15 pm
>, are noted for their open and inclusive society.
Open and inclusive does not mean..open to slavery, exploitation, injustice and degradation. Purdah culture encompasses all these things.
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 12:25 pm
DPF said… “While it would be wrong to have a blanket policy to target everyone of a particular group”
Even if that particular group was the source of 99% of the world’s terrorists? Who better to target?
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 12:44 pm
Niz what I mean is simply strip searching every Muslim is not justifiable. However I am sure airport authorities have a list of oh say 20 or so factors they look for (nervous behaviour etc) and being Muslim is undoubtably one of the factors.
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Niz – muslims aren’t the source of 99% of the worlds terrorists – so would that mean that we would automatically search anyone with an Irish accent, or people from Italy and Germany who looked vaguely left wing?
And logix, the burkah is often a choice.
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 12:56 pm
>Open and inclusive does not mean..open to slavery, exploitation, injustice and degradation. Purdah culture encompasses all these things
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 1:04 pm
That should read “rather NOT be in your ‘shoes’” (high-heels or otherwise).
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 1:40 pm
>Where do we draw the line – or is it simply a matter of what you personally are comfortable with?
Well yes we DO have to draw a line. Just because it is difficult does not mean we cannot try. That is what democracy is about.
If I walked fully nude down the Terrace I would be harming no-one, not oppressing anyone, would you let me claim that I was just choosing to dress in the manner that suits me?
If I covered my partner head to toe in latex and walked her down the Terrace with a dog collar around her neck, dragging her along at the end of a leash….would you be happy for me to claim that it was just a “lifestyle thing”?
If I primitively cut off the clitoris of my 11 year old daughter and sewed her vaginal lips together, would you let me claim it is just a “cultural practise” and “butt out you white imperialist colonising racist”.
We DO make distinctions about what is acceptable or not.
As for high heels, your point might be valid if NZ was still a deeply sexist society that compelled women to be male property and treated solely as sexual objects in public. But NZ society has largely repudiated those attitudes and high heels are nowadays a choice women make for reasons of personal vanity. They may be silly, but they do not represent much anymore.
But I think if you apreciated in greater depth what the burkhah stood for and how profoundly oppressive the culture is represents is, you might well see why it has no place on NZ streets.
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Logix you are completely missing the point regarding personal choice – all of the examples that you offer take their basis from coercion (the removal of choice) – apart from the first, and that is a wholly different matter (as has already been pointed out).
I’m not arguing against your view about the oppressiveness of the Purdah culture – I am just trying to get you to realise that by taking away the personal choice to wear whatever costume you wish amounts to oppresion as well (albeit not necessarily in the same league, but hypocritical nonetheless).
A similar comparison might be a Jewish person choosing to wear the Star of David pinned to their outer clothes, or some other ‘sign’ of cultural oppresion being worn by one who is no longer opressed. While it would be hard to fathom why someone should choose to do this, it is ultimately their choice and they should be left to it.
The adoption of the pink triangle by gay pride is an example of this – where some groups find empowerment in adopting formerly oppressive symbols for their own use. Who are you to tell them that this is inappropriate?
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 2:38 pm
Sam,
I have conclusively shown that:
1. As a society we do have a right to determine what is acceptable behaviour or not.
2. Purdah culture is NOT acceptable in NZ.
3. The burkhah is an exceedingly visible symbol and application of it. Women who wear it are not doing so because they have a choice. Almost invariably they are doing so because their menfolk would not let them do otherwise.
Personal choice is not the highest principle. A moments thought will tell you that our choices are always circumscribed by what society allows. This is not oppression; it is what we HAVE to do in order to live in groups. There are ALWAYS limits, you cannot do without them.
Personally I prefer liberal boundaries, but never at the expense of all other principles. In this case I am very opposed to allowing Middle Eastern men establish their retrogressive sexist attitudes in this country. It is worth trading off the freedom to wear the burkhah in order to take a stand against it.
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 2:50 pm
You overestimate the powers of your argument somewhat when you state that you have conclusively shown that “Women who wear it are not doing so because they have a choice”.
You overestimate your own importance by conflating your opinion with “what society allows” (the fact that someone is allowed to wear a Burkhah in this country is evidence of that).
“Personally I prefer liberal boundaries, but never at the expense of all other principles. In this case I am very opposed to allowing Middle Eastern men establish their retrogressive sexist attitudes in this country” – How about persecuting and penalising those that are imposing these attitudes rather than those who may or may not be a victim of it.
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 3:09 pm
>You overestimate the powers of your argument somewhat when you state that you have conclusively shown that “Women who wear it are not doing so because they have a choice”.
I thought you might say that. Consider then the nature of the FGM example I used above. Consider that the perpetrators of this disgusting practice, are the usually mothers of the girls, who at that age were victims of it themselves. Coercion is often more than just a “twist you arm up your back” thing.
>You overestimate your own importance by conflating your opinion with “what society allows” (the fact that someone is allowed to wear a Burkhah in this country is evidence of that).
How can I conflate my opinion with current practice, when the two are absolutely different?
>How about persecuting and penalising those that are imposing these attitudes rather than those who may or may not be a victim of it.
And how the hell do you suggest we achieve such a thing? What you are really saying is…”I don’t care, let the whole issue stay well swept under the carpet.”
Being liberal is all very well, but too often it becomes cover for not standing for anything much at all.
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 3:53 pm
Ok, lets use your FGM example – once the mutilation has taken place the damage is done. Would you force a victim of this practice, who may or may not agree to its legitmacy, to undergo surgery to ‘correct’ the mutilation. I hope not, but it would be entirely valid to offer it as an option for them to choose – give the ‘victim’ the empowerment of choice.
With the Burkhah you are removing a part of that person that they in all probability wish to retain for fear of committing a sin in the eyes of their God (although there might well be other reasons) – you start to victimise them all over again so that they conform to YOUR beliefs. The most enlightened thing you can do is allow them to not wear it if they choose, and not to judge or persecute them if they choose to wear it. Give the victim the empowerment of choice, not remove their freedom all over again.
“You overestimate your own importance by conflating your opinion with “what society allows” (the fact that someone is allowed to wear a Burkhah in this country is evidence of that).” – Ok, that was a messy statement, but it was meant to go along the lines of:
You say that you defend the rights of New Zealanders to define what is acceptable as cultural practice – but the wearing of burkhah is accepted here in New Zealand as a legitimate form of dressing, so what’s your point? You state that choices are made within the limits of what society allows – ok, they have been – then you go on to say what society SHOULD allow as though you are the sole authority and conscience of New Zealand society (even if the opposite is the case).
As for your last point, I made a suggestion for action that does not re-victimised the people that you are trying to ‘liberate’ from oppression (incidentally, are you this consistent with your views on the American invasaion of Iraq?). I did not propose zero action or sweeping the issue under the carpet as you suggest. Although the inevitable ‘mainstreaming’ of immigrant communities will end up making this argument wholly redundant, there is still plenty of room for informed education, and where necessary legal action to prevent the more harmful cultural practices that you refer to.
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 4:00 pm
Ok, lets use your FGM example – once the mutilation has taken place the damage is done. Would you force a victim of this practice, who may or may not agree to its legitmacy, to undergo surgery to ‘correct’ the mutilation. I hope not, but it would be entirely valid to offer it as an option for them to choose – give the ‘victim’ the empowerment of choice.
With the Burkhah you are removing a part of that person that they in all probability wish to retain for fear of committing a sin in the eyes of their God (although there might well be other reasons) – you start to victimise them all over again so that they conform to YOUR beliefs. The most enlightened thing you can do is allow them to not wear it if they choose, and not to judge or persecute them if they choose to wear it. Give the victim the empowerment of choice, not remove their freedom all over again.
“You overestimate your own importance by conflating your opinion with “what society allows” (the fact that someone is allowed to wear a Burkhah in this country is evidence of that).” – Ok, that was a messy statement, but it was meant to go along the lines of:
You say that you defend the rights of New Zealanders to define what is acceptable as cultural practice – but the wearing of burkhah is accepted here in New Zealand as a legitimate form of dressing, so what’s your point? You state that choices are made within the limits of what society allows – ok, they have been – then you go on to say what society SHOULD allow as though you are the sole authority and conscience of New Zealand society (even if the opposite is the case).
As for your last point, I made a suggestion for action that does not re-victimised the people that you are trying to ‘liberate’ from oppression (incidentally, are you this consistent with your views on the American invasaion of Iraq?). I did not propose zero action or sweeping the issue under the carpet as you suggest. Although the inevitable ‘mainstreaming’ of immigrant communities will end up making this argument wholly redundant, there is still plenty of room for informed education, and where necessary legal action to prevent the more harmful cultural practices that you refer to.
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 4:03 pm
Oh, and no doubt the storm-troopers from your fashion-police will be down at the beach ripping off any http://www.wholesomewear.com this summer!
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 4:15 pm
As much as I find the blatant demonising of Islam as both ignorant and dangerous…at the same time we it is easy to forget that if my partner and I were to go to most Islamic countries, and dress or behave inappropriately (Allah forbid she sunbathed topless on a beach somewhere)…we would be treated very rudely at best, likely with a few well aimed stones as well.
Not all Islamic countries. I’ve been with young ladies who subathed topless on Turkish beaches without retribution (although the local youths were pretty interested).
The burkha is an extreme tradition of dress, and I think most of us are uncomfortable with it. But banning it would cause more trouble than letting it fade away.
These are first-generation immigrants we’re talking about. Their children will grow up with quite different cultural influences, and I’d expect it to become an even rarer sight than it is now (we’re talking about a small minority of a very small minority here, even now, remember).
The Koran doesn’t stipulate the Burkha, and in the case of, say Afghanistan, it’s related to Pashtun tradition, rather than Islam.
Strange rules about garb are hardly the preserve of Islam. I went to school with Mormon kids who had to wear the funny underwear (a stipulation not visited on burkha-clad women, who I understand can and sometimes do wear quite racy underwear). Some orthodox Jewish women have to shave their heads and wear wigs. That’s quite strange from our point of view.
On the other hand, the Christian missionaries brought with them to the Pacific a different standard for above-the-waist nudity for men and women that we now consider conventional.
Cheers,
Vote:RB
November 23rd, 2005 at 4:16 pm
“Less controversial, and praise-worthy, is the proposal for local Muslim associations to vet new members, to minimise the possibility of infiltration from radical or criminal factions”
hahahahaha… dpf, it’s hilarious that you find this action praise-worthy. let me enlighten you a little: the association that is doing this vetting is the muslim association of canterbury (mac), which was in the news a couple of years ago. you may remember that many members of the christchurch muslim community wrote to local and national government expressing their concerns that mac was about to sell the chch mosque to al-haramein, an organisation apparently on the american list suspected of allegedly providing funds to terrorists. it was only because of said publicity that the mosque remains in nz ownership, much to the relief of the wider muslim community in nz, who generally oppose foreign ownership of our mosques.
mac has a colourful history, especially in the last few years – which i won’t go into here. but if their proposal makes you feel safer… well, i just hope that those responsible for our security have a whole lot more sense than you!!!!
and logix, from all that you say above, it would seem to me that you haven’t had an in-depth discussion with a woman who wears a burqa. as a muslim woman who doesn’t wear one, and who doesn’t believe muslim women have to wear one, i have had some livley discussions with muslim women who believe otherwise. if you think that they are repressed, victimised, brain-washed etc etc etc, why don’t you try telling them that and see what they have to say to you. contact me directly, and i’ll get you in touch with some. i suspect that they will tell you that they think many western women are repressed, victimised, brainwashed etc etc etc. but let me not put words in their mouth. talk to them yourself.
Vote:November 23rd, 2005 at 4:35 pm
I’m with Russell. What was once considered strange can be considered normal over a period of time. For example, by 2050 it will be quite ho hum for us to follow the Muslim example and decorate ourselves with semtex.
Vote:Two Muslim women were chatting to each other about their children. One sighed to the other “gosh they blow up so fast these days”.
November 23rd, 2005 at 4:54 pm
I am perfectly aware that millions of women who wear the burkhah do so because they are so conditioned all their lives to it’s presence, that to do otherwise would seem unthinkable. People do things for all manner of reasons, mostly emotional reasons. Rationality rarely has much to do with it.
I have had reason to do more with the Middle Eastern world than you assume. I have experienced what I call the “purdah culture” up close. I believe it is an abberation that with time should be encouraged to die out. I know that this is judgemental of me, but you cannot through life making no judgements, standing for nothing. For every rationalisation I have heard in it’s favour, there is an enormous weight of evidence of how profoundly oppressive and downright medieval it all is.
RB makes the strong point that with time the wearing of the purdah will likely die out in NZ. I most certainly hope he is right. I concede that making it illegal as such is probably counterproductive. At the same time there should be no sense of allowing it to be tolerated as “socially acceptable”, or treated as a legitimate cultural practice that is granted any form of official sanction here in NZ.
No objections I take it then to allowing total nudity to be permitted in all public places?
Vote:November 24th, 2005 at 7:51 am
Logix, I really appreciate your stance against the burkha. Unfortunately Wussell is misleading you again. Perhaps Wussell should have a look around at the suburbs of the third generation migrants in England and Europe.
And for all the people here who believe it is a choice: muslims don’t have a choice. They cannot recant their religion upon on punishment of death. And that is in the Koran.
Vote:November 24th, 2005 at 7:57 am
And for all the people here who believe it is a choice: muslims don’t have a choice. They cannot recant their religion upon on punishment of death. And that is in the Koran.
Wow! That’s bad news for my muslim friends and collegues who have, uh, recanted their religion. Can you point us towards a case in New Zealand in which this punishment has been applied?
Vote:November 24th, 2005 at 8:54 am
On profiling:
I would actually feel safer if people were all inspected equally. I can’t escape the nagging feeling that, once we’ve started to crack down on arabic terrorists, we’ll suddenly and unexpectedly have to deal with terrorists of other ethnic groups and will be unprepared.
Vote:November 24th, 2005 at 9:12 am
“Perhaps Wussell should have a look around at the suburbs of the third generation migrants in England and Europe”
Perhaps you should compare apples with apples – the third generation migrants in Europe are far greater in number than is the case here. This means that they form almost autonomous communities with very little chance of integrating meaningfully into their host society(excacerbated by cultural attitudes of their hosts, not too dissimilar from your own).
The experience here in New Zealand is quite different with much smaller numbers of immigrants (many of these refugees rather than migrant workers), and a more open society that is tolerant and inclusive (not withstanding you, logix, and that chap from Dunedin).
Vote:November 24th, 2005 at 9:30 am
Ari I’m struggling with your logic.Are you suggesting that officials spend as much time on elderly Jewish women as they do on young Arabic men? Is this not minimising a problem that exists today in favour of possibly preventing one that may happen in the future?
Vote:November 24th, 2005 at 11:25 am
I found this pop-quiz that may shed some light on profiling.
1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
1. Olga Corbitt
2. Sitting Bull
3. Arnold Schwarzeneger
4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
2. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
1. Lost Norwegians
2. Elvis
3. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
3. During the 1980′s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
1. John Dillinger
2. The King of Sweden
3. The Boy Scouts
4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
4. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
1. A pizza delivery boy
2. Pee Wee Herman
3. Geraldo Rivera
4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year-old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
1. The Smurfs
2. Davy Jones
3. The Little Mermaid
4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
1. Captain Kidd
2. Charles Lindberg
3. Mother Teresa
4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
1. Scooby Doo
2. The Tooth Fairy
3. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
1. Richard Simmons
2. Grandma Moses
3. Michael Jordan
4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
9. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
1. Mr. Rogers
2. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill’s women problems
3. The World Wrestling Federation
4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
10. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
1. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
2. The Supreme Court of Florida
3. Mr. Bean
4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
1. Enron
2. The Lutheran Church
3. The NFL
4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
Vote:1. Bonnie and Clyde
2. Captain Kangaroo
3. Billy Graham
4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
November 24th, 2005 at 12:30 pm
“And for all the people here who believe it is a choice: muslims don’t have a choice. They cannot recant their religion upon on punishment of death. And that is in the Koran.”
Yeah. Same penalty as in Leviticus 20:9 for “Cursing your parents”. I saw a kid up in Remuera the other week cursing at his parents. I take it he was very lucky that there weren’t any Christians around who’d have dragged him out into the street and executed him on the spot?
Vote:November 24th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Very lucky. I, for one, would have done just that, it’s high time we got some discipline back into schools.
Vote:November 24th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
Maybe we could do one for the IRA, or sikh terrorists or for american militia (Timothy McVeigh) or US based cults (Jonestown, Heavens Gate, Waco), or communists in europe (red brigade etc), or fascists in south and central america or US military(1. Who carpet bombed Cambodia? 2. Who massacred the population of Mai Lai? etc etc). That ‘quiz’ is just facile – of course you can highlight your point if you ask questions like that. But it would be as easy to prove anything else.
And Berend, your attitudes scare me, why should muslims necessarily want to not be muslims? A lot of muslims are fairly liberal, treat women well, and look after their families – fundies are a minority. What about the EB, who treat women as second class citizens and from whom you are not allowed to leave (the punishment being a kind of living death, no contact with family friends etc).
Most people in the world are just that, people. Terrorists, repressive religions or political systems etc pop up everywhere, and it is only through tolerance that we can actually change things – the west is freer than most parts of the world, mainly because people started to tolerate other peoples opinions, beliefs and ways of life. Unfortunately at the moment those claiming to speak for freedom are the same people who are trying to snuff out tolerance.
Vote:November 26th, 2005 at 11:16 am
I dont see much of a problem with burkhah except where it gets in the way of things like photos for identity cards and so forth. I also dont think we should have a problem with total nudity.
But of course there is a difference between how things should be and how they are so I accept our right to make our own rules even if they are stupid and baised on nothing.
Vote:November 26th, 2005 at 6:49 pm
RB: Turkey’s a secular country. Where I am, a woman can expect to take a lot of shit for showing arms and legs in public, and would be arrested long before getting as far as showing her tits. I’ve been ordered by my employers to remove my earrings for my own safety – personally I think that’s exaggerated, because the cops hassled me about them but didn’t take any action over it. The only thing I can see that’s guaranteed to get you killed is trying to fuck one of the local women – the cops will and have ruled suicide or accidental death in the most ridiculous circumstances for that offence.
I’m fully in agreement with Logix that we should do whatever we can to avoid letting immigrants from these kind of countries bring that bullshit with them. All those things the Yanks spout about the price of liberty being eternal vigilence and so on are absolutely correct, even if the Yanks themselves sometimes have an odd way of showing it.
Vote: