# DO YOU THINK FRANCE WAS RIGHT???



## ILuvCowparsely (14 June 2012)

I do  they should remove their masks when entering a country. 

 This is how so many of them get in.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-entering-France-refusing-remove-veils.html


----------



## BBH (14 June 2012)

Yes I do.

In the current climate we have to be able to identify everybody regardless of creed or colour.

Its a shame it has to be like this but it does.


----------



## HappyHorses:) (14 June 2012)

100% right. Rules are rules.


----------



## fburton (14 June 2012)

BBH said:



			In the current climate we have to be able to identify everybody regardless of creed or colour.
		
Click to expand...

Hoodies too!


----------



## undertheweather (14 June 2012)

The issue here is that it is illegal for these women to wear their religious head coverings in public in France. Not that they refused to show their faces through passport control etc.

OP I do not know what you mean by "This is how so many of them get in." when in fact these women go through passport control just like us and have to show their faces to a female controller behind a screen. They do not just wander in, what a ridiculous thing to think!

Can you actually read???


----------



## Trakehner (14 June 2012)

Remember, these women are the followers of the religion that commits most of the terrorism.  The saying, "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims."

-A better question, why is the blind sheik still in the country?
-Why were Muslims allowed to jeer and swear at the troops arriving home from Iraq?
-Who cares if the Lockerbie mastermind had cancer, why should he ever have been released?

Everyone faces insulting inspections traveling now due to Muslim terror threats, they can't get up on their high horse and start whingeing about their privacy when they've caused the problems.


----------



## BigRed (14 June 2012)

The reality is that a few years ago a policewoman was shot in the midlands, the man muslim man who shot her, was able to flee the country by wearing a veil.  He obviously wasn't checked when he went through security.

i have no problem with Muslim ladies choosing to cover their heads with a veil or even wear full length coverings, but in this day and ago they do not need to compleely cover their face.  It is obscene subjugation of women.


----------



## undertheweather (14 June 2012)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/76179/WPC-killer-fled-UK-in-a-veil.html?print=yes

Even in this article, it is said that all incoming passengers are checked. 

I agree that they don't need to wear a veil covering their face. But this post is not about muslim women taking their veils off for airport checks, it is because it is against the law to wear a face covering in a public place in France, and the airport is a public place! Nothing to do with passport control at all. 

I honestly don't know what is going through people's minds at all if they read that article and assume it was passport control?!?


----------



## Alec Swan (14 June 2012)

Trakehner said:



			Remember, these women are the followers of the religion that commits most of the terrorism.  

..........
		
Click to expand...

Have you ever stopped and asked the question,  WHY?  

Have you ever considered that the seats of terrorism are based in the lands where the Western World has interfered the most?  

Terrorism is only ever born of and promoted by the Western World medalling with and manipulating the lives of those who either through culture or lack of ability (all so often tribal people),  aren't able to defend themselves.  Understandably,  resentment grows and splinter groups form.

During the '50s and '60s,  promoted mostly by the "Reds under the beds" brigade,  we were terrified of Communists and Russia,  in particular.  Along came Glasnost,  and we found that we had nothing to fear (that's a bit simplistic,  I realise,  but that was about it)!

By and large,  the Muslim has no wish to take us over.  They simply want us out of their faces,  and they want to be left in peace.  We have relied upon the fact that,  by definition,  the Muslims tend to be tribal people.  They aren't able to put a cohesive resistance together (just as historically,  the Scots couldn't) and so the extremists are born,  and resistance tends to father terrorism.

There is no simple answer,  but were we to remove our selves and our influence from the Middle East,  and if the Arab terrorist had nothing to fight,  then he'd return to his shell.

When we stop medalling in the affairs of the Muslim,  then we will have nothing to fear.  The above is all a bit simplistic,  I realise,  but am I alone in thinking that the best way to approach the war on terrorism,  is to withdraw?  No fight=no war.

Alec.


----------



## zaminda (14 June 2012)

While I would agree that terrorism is often caused by the west interfering, I would say that people moving to the west need to follow our rules, much like we do when we go to their countries. I would remove all terrorists, and those preaching hate from UK soil, where they weren't born in the country. Their rights have to come second to those people wanting to live in peace.


----------



## planete (14 June 2012)

I agree with both Alec and Zaminda.


----------



## BBH (14 June 2012)

Its a really difficult one.

My heart sinks when you look at Syria but it sank even more when William Hague said he couldn't rule out military intervention.

Why do we have to run across the world putting all ills right ( in our minds ).

Its desperate seeing all these really young boys / men on the news dying in Afganistan,  a place they probably can't even spell never mind understand what its all for.

We should learn our lessons,  protect our own land and be happy with that.


----------



## Spudlet (14 June 2012)

Trakehner said:



			Everyone faces insulting inspections traveling now due to Muslim terror threats, they can't get up on their high horse and start whingeing about their privacy when they've caused the problems.
		
Click to expand...

Following this logic, as a member of a Roman Catholic Northern Irish family I would like to apologise to everyone for the lack of bins in train stations. Neither I nor my family have any link to the IRA, but apparently it's all our fault that some nutters decided to blow people up anyway since there's a common religion...

Sorry.


----------



## BBH (14 June 2012)

Spudlet said:



			Following this logic, as a member of a Roman Catholic Northern Irish family I would like to apologise to everyone for the lack of bins in train stations. Neither I nor my family have any link to the IRA, but apparently it's all our fault that some nutters decided to blow people up anyway since there's a common religion...

Sorry.
		
Click to expand...

Apology accepted


----------



## lazybee (14 June 2012)

undertheweather said:



http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/76179/WPC-killer-fled-UK-in-a-veil.html?print=yes

Even in this article, it is said that all incoming passengers are checked. 

I agree that they don't need to wear a veil covering their face. But this post is not about muslim women taking their veils off for airport checks, it is because it is against the law to wear a face covering in a public place in France, and the airport is a public place! Nothing to do with passport control at all. 

I honestly don't know what is going through people's minds at all if they read that article and assume it was passport control?!?
		
Click to expand...

Just for your information in France the border Police ARE passport control. It's the Police at Charles de Gaulle that check your passport.

These women were clearly making a statement. I regularly fly to and from Doha and I'm coming back from Doha Saturday. Any women on that flight change their clothes before the flight lands.

They were standing up for their rights to be not allowed to drive, to enter shops by the rear (women only) entrance back in Saudi or face the wrath of the religious police.


----------



## Alec Swan (14 June 2012)

zaminda said:



			....... I would say that people moving to the west need to follow our rules, much like we do when we go to their countries. I would remove all terrorists, and those preaching hate from UK soil, where they weren't born in the country. Their rights have to come second to those people wanting to live in peace.
		
Click to expand...

I'm with you,  on both points.  When we are in foreign lands,  we live by their rules,  or we get slung out.  When they're here,  we alter our rules to suit them,  or so it seems.  

Were we to deport those visitors who refuse to fit in with us,  then we may be shown greater respect.  

Alec.


----------



## lazybee (14 June 2012)

While we're on the subject. Why do women of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin wear the middle eastern full veil ? the women certainly don't wear that garb in Pakistan or Bangladesh. I say they're just doing it to make a statement and stick two fingers up to Britain. It's like Brits going to the middle east wearing a miniskirt and expecting to get away with it.  

France has more Muslims than any other country in Europe, most of them are from north Africa who don't wear the full veil so don't have an issue. The one's that did were being provocative. Multi race great, multi culture just causes divisions in society. France is trying to encourage integration.


----------



## CorvusCorax (14 June 2012)

Trakehner said:



			Remember, these women are the followers of the religion that commits most of the terrorism.  The saying, "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims."
		
Click to expand...

Congratulations! This is the most ignorant thing I have ever read on HHO, and that is saying something.

The most recent terrorist related-murders on UK soil were committed by people from a white 'Christian' denomination. But few people on this thread could remember the victim's names without Googling, or could pick them out of a line-up I bet. Maybe because brown people didn't kill them?

Totally agree Alec.


----------



## smokey (14 June 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Have you ever stopped and asked the question,  WHY?  

Have you ever considered that the seats of terrorism are based in the lands where the Western World has interfered the most?  

Terrorism is only ever born of and promoted by the Western World medalling with and manipulating the lives of those who either through culture or lack of ability (all so often tribal people),  aren't able to defend themselves.  Understandably,  resentment grows and splinter groups form.

During the '50s and '60s,  promoted mostly by the "Reds under the beds" brigade,  we were terrified of Communists and Russia,  in particular.  Along came Glasnost,  and we found that we had nothing to fear (that's a bit simplistic,  I realise,  but that was about it)!

By and large,  the Muslim has no wish to take us over.  They simply want us out of their faces,  and they want to be left in peace.  We have relied upon the fact that,  by definition,  the Muslims tend to be tribal people.  They aren't able to put a cohesive resistance together (just as historically,  the Scots couldn't) and so the extremists are born,  and resistance tends to father terrorism.

There is no simple answer,  but were we to remove our selves and our influence from the Middle East,  and if the Arab terrorist had nothing to fight,  then he'd return to his shell.

When we stop medalling in the affairs of the Muslim,  then we will have nothing to fear.  The above is all a bit simplistic,  I realise,  but am I alone in thinking that the best way to approach the war on terrorism,  is to withdraw?  No fight=no war.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree Alec, only adding that perhaps selling weapons to these countries might not be the brightest idea either.


----------



## smokey (14 June 2012)

CaveCanem said:



			Congratulations! This is the most ignorant thing I have ever read on HHO, and that is saying something.

The most recent terrorist related-murders on UK soil were committed by people from a white 'Christian' denomination. But few people on this thread could remember the victim's names without Googling, or could pick them out of a line-up I bet. Maybe because brown people didn't kill them?

Totally agree Alec.
		
Click to expand...

This. I despair for humanity sometimes!


----------



## Sleighfarer (14 June 2012)

CaveCanem said:



			Congratulations! This is the most ignorant thing I have ever read on HHO, and that is saying something.

The most recent terrorist related-murders on UK soil were committed by people from a white 'Christian' denomination. But few people on this thread could remember the victim's names without Googling, or could pick them out of a line-up I bet. Maybe because brown people didn't kill them?

Totally agree Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree with your comments about ignorance but surely the London tube/bus bombings were the last terrorist murders?


----------



## CorvusCorax (14 June 2012)

I rest my case 

Two soldiers and two policemen have been killed on UK soil in the last three years. Another policeman had to have both legs amputated after a bomb exploded under his car. There have been numerous attempts to shoot or blow up police and army personnel in recent years.


----------



## smokey (14 June 2012)

CaveCanem said:



			I rest my case 

Two soldiers and two policemen have been killed on UK soil in the last three years. Another policeman had to have both legs amputated after a bomb exploded under his car. There have been numerous attempts to shoot or blow up police and army personnel in recent years.
		
Click to expand...

This


----------



## fburton (14 June 2012)

And in terms of sheer numbers (and terror), _many_ more ordinary brown people have been killed by white people on brown soil than ordinary white people have been killed by brown people on white soil.


----------



## CorvusCorax (14 June 2012)

Exactly FBurton.


----------



## smokey (14 June 2012)

This is so well put, says it all! I'm so glad others think as I do, I usually get shot down in flames when I voice my feelings on the western worlds intervention in the name of democracy.


----------



## Alec Swan (14 June 2012)

*"We don't give in to terrorist's demands"* and quite rightly so.  One small point though,  were we not so arrogant,  that we failed to listen to the *request*,  then the *demand* may not have been made.  Is it that difficult for us to actually think about the way that the rest of the world sees us?  Do we care?  Do we ***k!! 

I've spent some time in the desert,  and with Arabs,  and because of my origin,  I was respected.  If only they'd known how ashamed I was,  to be part of such a machine.

We will claim the rights of the Afghani women and particularly,  the female children,  and we'll tell the world that that's the reason,  in part,  for our presence.  Then we try to justify a 2 year prison sentence,  handed down to a man who has buggered small boys,  and ruined their lives,  and then I wonder just how we have the temerity to judge others,  others who would have decapitated the man,  without a second's thought!!

I have no answers,  only more questions!! 

Alec.


----------



## siennamum (14 June 2012)

Alec Swan said:



*"We don't give in to terrorist's demands"* and quite rightly so.  One small point though,  were we not so arrogant,  that we failed to listen to the *request*,  then the *demand* may not have been made.  Is it that difficult for us to actually think about the way that the rest of the world sees us?  Do we care?  Do we ***k!! 

I've spent some time in the desert,  and with Arabs,  and because of my origin,  I was respected.  If only they'd known how ashamed I was,  to be part of such a machine.

We will claim the rights of the Afghani women and particularly,  the female children,  and we'll tell the world that that's the reason,  in part,  for our presence.  Then we try to justify a 2 year prison sentence,  handed down to a man who has buggered small boys,  and ruined their lives,  and then I wonder just how we have the temerity to judge others,  others who would have decapitated the man,  without a second's thought!!

I have no answers,  only more questions!! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I was going to make the 'what about the women' claim. Won't now as I think you have covered it. I do think we have to get involved on occasion - I would hate to think we would have done nothing about the holocaust (although we did nothing about Rwanda) but I can't believe that the real reason we are in this part of the World is to protect the women sadly!


----------



## Sleighfarer (14 June 2012)

CaveCanem said:



			I rest my case 

Two soldiers and two policemen have been killed on UK soil in the last three years. Another policeman had to have both legs amputated after a bomb exploded under his car. There have been numerous attempts to shoot or blow up police and army personnel in recent years.
		
Click to expand...

Ah, of course.


----------



## Hairy Old Cob (14 June 2012)

I have often wondered what would happen if i went up the town in Camoflage and a wearing a balaclava pretty damm sure with my face covered I would soon have the attention of the Police. How can it be right for people to be walking around with their faces covered I have seen weomen driving in Leicester in the Full burqa only a slit to see out off how can this be right.


----------



## mtj (14 June 2012)

I do not want to give any details, as i do not want to cause any hassle for the woman (British Asian) involved.

This well educated, professional with a successful business, was coerced (sp) into wearing a burkha, by her (born again Muslim) husband.  They are now divorced and she alternates between western dress and covering her hair depending on the occassion.  The veil is firmly in her past.

So when you see a veiled woman, please do not assume she is doing this of her own choice.  It might just be a symbol of her husband/family's wish to keep control.

Personally, I know where I would like to shove these veils.


----------



## sophiebailey (14 June 2012)

Whilst all terrorism is despicable, let us not forget the 100,000+ afghan and iraqi citizens +  children who have died as a result of our 'wars on terror' .... Are our actions towards the eastern religions\communities on a par with their actions towards us? Where is the line drawn between a war and terrorism? Are the deaths of these people justified as we too have suffered losses? Do two wrongs make a right?

If communities + countries learnt to co-exist without this need to 'dominate' and 'control' I should imagine many of these people would have been saved.

Every September 11th we have a 2 minutes silence for the victims of the twin towers ...... When is the silence for the victims of the resulting war on terrorism?

We are not the only nation aggreived by the actions of foreigners xxx


----------



## OFG (14 June 2012)

For once I think France have done what our Government is too weak spined to do. 

I believe that everyone is entitled to worship which ever religious beliefs they want to BUT it shouldn't be rammed into everyone else s faces and make them conform too.

I actually feel quite uncomfortable when I encounter Muslim women wearing a full face veil. I also feel quite victimised when I enter a petrol filling station wearing my motorcycle helmet and get asked to remove it for 'security' reasons. They don't ask Muslim women to remove their veils for 'security' reasons. WHY? Is it not the same, they can see more of my face than they can of the Muslims through their veils.

Whether people like it or not, we are (or were ) a predominantly Christian / Catholic country, therefor, when in Rome (no pun intended) act like Romans. Don't expect our country to change it's laws to suit your religious beliefs, because you can bet your own country won't do the same for us when we visit you.


----------



## Armas (14 June 2012)

OFG said:



			For once I think France have done what our Government is too weak spined to do. 

I believe that everyone is entitled to worship which ever religious beliefs they want to BUT it shouldn't be rammed into everyone else s faces and make them conform too.

I actually feel quite uncomfortable when I encounter Muslim women wearing a full face veil. I also feel quite victimised when I enter a petrol filling station wearing my motorcycle helmet and get asked to remove it for 'security' reasons. They don't ask Muslim women to remove their veils for 'security' reasons. WHY? Is it not the same, they can see more of my face than they can of the Muslims through their veils.

Whether people like it or not, we are (or were ) a predominantly Christian / Catholic country, therefor, when in Rome (no pun intended) act like Romans. Don't expect our country to change it's laws to suit your religious beliefs, because you can bet your own country won't do the same for us when we visit you.
		
Click to expand...

Could not have said it better


----------



## CorvusCorax (14 June 2012)

But yet the UK and USA are over there trying to stamp a Western-style 'democracy' in other countries?

I think as you well know, the motorcycle helmet removal thing is to do with the number of armed robberies carried out by people in motorcycle helmets. While I think there are recorded cases of people committing crimes dressed as Muslim women, they are negligible in comparison.

*I believe that everyone is entitled to worship which ever religious beliefs they want to BUT it shouldn't be rammed into everyone else s faces and make them conform too.*
Hmm, tell that to the pagans, the native Americans, and the cathars.....oh, remember the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades?!


----------



## ClassicG&T (14 June 2012)

100%  right. If you aren't gonna follow a countries laws, bugger off out of it. 

I think we should ban the veil in Britian, i don't like it, it makes me feel uncomfortable and it's just not right


----------



## smokey (14 June 2012)

CaveCanem said:



			But yet the UK and USA are over there trying to stamp a Western-style 'democracy' in other countries?

I think as you well know, the motorcycle helmet removal thing is to do with the number of armed robberies carried out by people in motorcycle helmets. While I think there are recorded cases of people committing crimes dressed as Muslim women, they are negligible in comparison.

*I believe that everyone is entitled to worship which ever religious beliefs they want to BUT it shouldn't be rammed into everyone else s faces and make them conform too.*
Hmm, tell that to the pagans, the native Americans, and the cathars.....oh, remember the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades?!
		
Click to expand...

I am liking your thinking! Cos it's the same as mine!


----------



## gracey (14 June 2012)

wewillshowthem said:



			100%  right. If you aren't gonna follow a countries laws, bugger off out of it.
		
Click to expand...

100% agree  abide and respect the laws of the country you are choosing to enter/live in  or sod off out of it!! ..easy!


----------



## smokey (14 June 2012)

gracey said:



			100% agree  abide and respect the laws of the country you are choosing to enter/live in  or sod off out of it!! ..easy!
		
Click to expand...

Flip side of that argument makes me rather uncomfortable


----------



## Littlelegs (14 June 2012)

I hate the burkha, both for its rather off putting appearance & what it stands for. But I think if anyone personally chooses to wear one (as in not forced to by others) they have every right to do so as long as it doesn't effect me. If my daughters teacher wore one, yes I'd take issue, small kids find them scary. If my neighbour does, who cares. 
  I agree at times a bit of 'when in Rome' should be adhered to, but taken to extremes should we outlaw turbans, saris, the distinctive dress of orthodox Jews? Or is it just Muslim dress? Worth pointing out whilst adopted by Muslims, the burkha is cultural rather than religious in origin. 
  I agree its disgusting the way we allow Muslim extremists to behave in the uk, but the average Muslim is no more responsible than I am for the ira. (excellent post spudlet).


----------



## sophiebailey (14 June 2012)

Littlelegs just playing devil's advocate but in my understanding of the faith and the reading I've done it's actually written in the Qu'arn that women must remain fully covered in public so as not to tempt men into 'sins of the flesh'.... There is a big religous ceremony when a girl has her first period as this is the age she must wear a veil\burkha until she marries and then she is only to reveal herself to her husband ........ Anyone please correct me if I am wrong but this was my understanding.

So as many are devout muslim, it's not an optional or cultural choice to wear a veil. 

I don't know where my stance is on the forced removal of burkhas in france ........ I can't imagine how some of the women have been 'punished' by their husbands fathers etc for revealing themselves in public and defying their faith ....... A good book to read is 'princess' by Jean Sassoon, gives a very interesting insight into what its actually like to be an arab woman..... Many are prisoners to their burkha and envy the faiths that aren't bound to wear one but live in fear of reprisal if they dare remove it, it just all seems so desperatley sad for these women who are judged at every turn and criticized by all communities when we really don't have an idea of the suffering they could be enduring


----------



## ILuvCowparsely (14 June 2012)

undertheweather said:



			The issue here is that it is illegal for these women to wear their religious head coverings in public in France. Not that they refused to show their faces through passport control etc.

OP I do not know what you mean by "This is how so many of them get in." when in fact these women go through passport control just like us and have to show their faces to a female controller behind a screen. They do not just wander in, what a ridiculous thing to think!

Can you actually read???
		
Click to expand...

Don't be so damn  RUDE! 

You have NO CLUE  without asking  why don't you try it before   putting your foot in it??  Maybe if you had asked what I meant I would have said in some countries this happens.  Well maybe my comment had nothing to do with this article  but what i read in the 80's  did you think of that???
You just assumed  I was referring to that article.  I will tell you what i mean .  There was an article  where there was some tracking done and it was found one gets in the country wearying this outfit, they then send the passport to the next member who comes in looking the same and so on.  

 One passport for them all.

 Why do people like you have to make sarky comments.


----------



## CorvusCorax (14 June 2012)

I'd love to see a link to this article and some proof...have you travelled internationally recently?


----------



## ILuvCowparsely (14 June 2012)

CaveCanem said:



			I'd love to see a link to this article and some proof...have you travelled internationally recently?
		
Click to expand...

does America - Cyprus - France count??


----------



## smokey (14 June 2012)

CaveCanem said:



			I'd love to see a link to this article and some proof...have you travelled internationally recently?
		
Click to expand...

It was possibly in the Mail, that's our most well known scare-mongering rag I think.


----------



## CorvusCorax (14 June 2012)

Leviathan, when you went through security, did you think, that what you just mentioned, would be possible? Especially the American security?


----------



## ILuvCowparsely (14 June 2012)

CaveCanem said:



			Leviathan, when you went through security, did you think, that what you just mentioned, would be possible? Especially the American security?
		
Click to expand...

duh no who is talking about the above happening in America??

 Listen not only was this a fact for a short while (Got it from the horses mouth) It was also  brought to light in the 80's 
 I don't have to explain  it any simpler for you do I??


----------



## CorvusCorax (14 June 2012)

Right, so it is completely irrelevant to the discussion, it happened 30 years ago, great.
And you got it from the horse's mouth, not an article?

Insult me again, I dare you


----------



## smokey (14 June 2012)

Leviathan said:



			duh no who is talking about the above happening in America??

 Listen not only was this a fact for a short while (Got it from the horses mouth) It was also  brought to light in the 80's 
 I don't have to explain  it any simpler for you do I??
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if your answer could be any more confusing!  Who told you this? Where did this happen? The 80's?  Your argument is hardly persuasive.


----------



## ILuvCowparsely (14 June 2012)

CaveCanem said:



			Right, so it is completely irrelevant to the discussion, it happened 30 years ago, great.
And you got it from the horse's mouth, not an article?

Insult me again, I dare you 

Click to expand...

I would not waste time and energy on you sorry   
  It was in an article too  but as I said I don't have to explain to you.

 You asked me if I had traveled internationally  I told you where.  I did NOT say anything about the article happening in the USA. sheesh


----------



## CorvusCorax (14 June 2012)

No need to apologise  and thanks for explaining


----------



## ILuvCowparsely (14 June 2012)

smokey said:



			I'm not sure if your answer could be any more confusing!  Who told you this? Where did this happen? The 80's?  Your argument is hardly persuasive.
		
Click to expand...



 The reason I cannot go into detail is.  I am not allowed to mention the family involved.

 Now I am done with this  I have more important things to  do than waste more any time on the computer.


----------



## CorvusCorax (14 June 2012)

Au revoir et bonsoir


----------



## smokey (14 June 2012)

Leviathan said:



			The reason I cannot go into detail is.  I am not allowed to mention the family involved.

 Now I am done with this  I have more important things to  do than waste more any time on the computer.
		
Click to expand...

Is this family that you dare not mention the original burkha sharing bunch from the 80's? Was it their horse that told you about their little scam?


----------



## Littlelegs (15 June 2012)

My understanding of the burkha being cultural in origin came from a Turkish Muslim girl I knew & a British muslim on separate occasions, & have heard the same since. My understanding is that whilst it maybe now a custom for some Muslims, some take the written word as a rough outline, much like the majority of Christians do with the bible, rather than following every word literally to the letter. Hence the reason its rare amongst Turkish Muslims. Some though take it word for word, at face value & adopted the burkha. Others think a veil is sufficient. Someone I know who is quite devout comes from a family who wear neither, & told me she isn't unusual, head coverings aren't a way of measuring how religious a Muslim is, just their interpretation of what is meant by modesty. And while there's no doubt that for many Muslims now its a part of their religion, the origin was just cultural.


----------



## sophiebailey (15 June 2012)

Interesting to know, thank you


----------



## Wundahorse (16 June 2012)

I respect the French for standing up for their culture and traditions,unlike the UK where successive Governments emasculate immigrants at the expense of our own culture and laws.Also the Moslem faith does not demand women cover up from head to toe,this practice is interpreted by fundamentalist to coerce their womenfolk to submit to their will.People,cultures and religions who emigrate to the UK should be expected to respect our way of life as we are expected to respect theirs.Our Governments do not have the bottle to assert equality in favour of the people born in this country,particularly those from a Christian background.It is time the Government followed the French example before ours culture is subsumed completely.


----------



## fburton (19 June 2012)

Emasculate? Well, I suppose it would stop them breeding here.


----------



## perfect11s (19 June 2012)

Wundahorse said:



			I respect the French for standing up for their culture and traditions,unlike the UK where successive Governments emasculate immigrants at the expense of our own culture and laws.Also the Moslem faith does not demand women cover up from head to toe,this practice is interpreted by fundamentalist to coerce their womenfolk to submit to their will.People,cultures and religions who emigrate to the UK should be expected to respect our way of life as we are expected to respect theirs.Our Governments do not have the bottle to assert equality in favour of the people born in this country,particularly those from a Christian background.It is time the Government followed the French example before ours culture is subsumed completely.
		
Click to expand...

 Um I think emasculate  means to remove their power ???  I would think indulge would be a better word perhaps


----------



## perfect11s (19 June 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Have you ever stopped and asked the question,  WHY?  

Have you ever considered that the seats of terrorism are based in the lands where the Western World has interfered the most?  

Terrorism is only ever born of and promoted by the Western World medalling with and manipulating the lives of those who either through culture or lack of ability (all so often tribal people),  aren't able to defend themselves.  Understandably,  resentment grows and splinter groups form.

During the '50s and '60s,  promoted mostly by the "Reds under the beds" brigade,  we were terrified of Communists and Russia,  in particular.  Along came Glasnost,  and we found that we had nothing to fear (that's a bit simplistic,  I realise,  but that was about it)!

By and large,  the Muslim has no wish to take us over.  They simply want us out of their faces,  and they want to be left in peace.  We have relied upon the fact that,  by definition,  the Muslims tend to be tribal people.  They aren't able to put a cohesive resistance together (just as historically,  the Scots couldn't) and so the extremists are born,  and resistance tends to father terrorism.

There is no simple answer,  but were we to remove our selves and our influence from the Middle East,  and if the Arab terrorist had nothing to fight,  then he'd return to his shell.

When we stop medalling in the affairs of the Muslim,  then we will have nothing to fear.  The above is all a bit simplistic,  I realise,  but am I alone in thinking that the best way to approach the war on terrorism,  is to withdraw?  No fight=no war.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

 Good post ,yes who gave our politicans the mandate  to medle , the stupid ****ers of both colors  bliar should be up for war crimes and the prat cammoron should know better ,wars and foriegn aid !!! lets  have the mess they have made of things here sorted out  first then they can play  bring democracy to the fuzzy wuzzies, shower of ***** the lot of them in the main partys...


----------



## turkana (19 June 2012)

A couple of years ago I was on holiday in Libya & the subject of covering the face came up while we were talking to our guide, he told us that it started with the bediuns who covered their faces to protect it from the sun & it then became a religious thing with some muslims.

He also said this is where the practice came of the woman walking behind her husband - he walked in front of her as she couldn't seen properly so she followed him.

Funnily enough although we saw a couple of women with their faces covered, we saw far more men doing it. A couple of our drivers kept their faces covered (with a scarf) all day, only uncovering in the evening.


----------



## smokey (19 June 2012)

perfect11s said:



			Good post ,yes who gave our politicans the mandate  to medle , the stupid ****ers of both colors  bliar should be up for war crimes and the prat cammoron should know better ,wars and foriegn aid !!! lets  have the mess they have made of things here sorted out  first then they can play  bring democracy to the fuzzy wuzzies, shower of ***** the lot of them in the main partys...
		
Click to expand...

Not sure what to make of this post, should I find it offensive?


----------



## fburton (19 June 2012)

smokey said:



			Not sure what to make of this post, should I find it offensive?

Click to expand...

Finding posts offensive is entirely optional, I believe.


----------



## fburton (19 June 2012)

turkana said:



			Funnily enough although we saw a couple of women with their faces covered, we saw far more men doing it. A couple of our drivers kept their faces covered (with a scarf) all day, only uncovering in the evening.
		
Click to expand...

Apparently, in Saudi, men can be seen walking hand in hand. It doesn't mean they are in love, just that they are good friends who respect each other. Ditto kissing on the cheek. It's just a cultural thing.


----------



## NoseyPosey (19 June 2012)

My tuppence worth - I spent 10 years on & off in the Middle East "interfering". Why? To prevent Saddam Hussein from gassing another 50,000+ of his own people using WMD's that he apparantly didn't have in the first place. Each time I entered a Muslim country (usually Saudi Arabia but sometimes Oman) I was subjected to a 100% search of myself (strip if requested) & baggage for banned material including religious material other than that of Islam, alcohol, pornography and pork. I friend of mine had his motorcycle magazine ripped up in front of him because it dared to show a centre spread of a young lady draped over a bike with just a bikini on. For the entire duration of my time in those countries I had to act respectfully, dress conservatively and, of course abide by the rules of that country.

So to answer the original question: yes, I do think that Muslim women should have to remove head gear on request in exactly the same way that I was expected to cover up when vsiiting a Muslim country.


----------



## fburton (19 June 2012)

Yes, and we should rip up _their_ magazines too!


----------



## Wundahorse (19 June 2012)

perfect11s said:



			Um I think emasculate  means to remove their power ???  I would think indulge would be a better word perhaps
		
Click to expand...

It means taking a soft approach.


----------



## perfect11s (19 June 2012)

smokey said:



			Not sure what to make of this post, should I find it offensive?

Click to expand...

   I think it will depend on how you view  politcians !!! 
lieing self serving crooks or altristic salt of the earth folk with the country's best intrests at heart...


----------



## perfect11s (19 June 2012)

Wundahorse said:



			It means taking a soft approach.
		
Click to expand...

 Are you sure??


----------



## Alec Swan (19 June 2012)

smokey said:



			Not sure what to make of this post, should I find it offensive?

Click to expand...

Offence is always taken,  it's never given.

On a slightly different tack,  and for those who live beside and with those of a Muslim faith,  would you think it true that those women of the faith who are here and are second or third generation,  are *less* likely to want to wear the veil?  Is the problem greater with those women who are already brought up in a different land,  and come to live here,  or visit our shores?

Alec.


----------



## smokey (19 June 2012)

Alec Swan said:



			Offence is always taken,  it's never given.

On a slightly different tack,  and for those who live beside and with those of a Muslim faith,  would you think it true that those women of the faith who are here and are second or third generation,  are *less* likely to want to wear the veil?  Is the problem greater with those women who are already brought up in a different land,  and come to live here,  or visit our shores?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Then I think I will take it, it seems rude to refuse
On you other point, I don't know, but I have noticed that in the last few years there have been several women wearing the burkha. Not sure if they are new to to area, or if they have newly adopted it. Certainly there have been Muslim families locally for some years, but until recently none whose women where veiled.


----------

