Post hasty

I'm not even Muslim (or any other monotheistic believer), but this brand of bullshit Jack Straw hillbilly thinking makes me want to wear veil simply to excercise my right to wear whatever the hell I want before it no longer exists.

Even if I agree that communicating with someone who's face I cannot entirely see poses its challenges, no one should hold the power to force another to compromise their own personal freedom of choice.

If you've got a problem with that; well then you've just got problems.


Scout said...

oh, so the little brit has his acorns in a knot because he can't handle not seeing an entire face? isn't it the words that come out that are the important factor? sides which, politicians have two faces, and ya never know which one you're talking with, so perhaps the public could request he remove his mask.

Amelopsis said...

YES! Precisely! Following this logic, I shouldn't have to cope with ever talking to a person with a wonky eye...after all, this can be confusing, which eye should I look at? It's an impediment to easy conversation and therefore the person should have to fix it. No disfigured persons either - they'll need reconstruction before we can talk.
Such assholishness is unconcionable

sk said...

An interesting experiment...

Amelopsis said...

Hi sk,
It's nice to see you here. That's a very interesting article. It illustrates the extent of the deficiency in communication lies not with those women who choose to veil themselves in some form or another, but with those unfortunate bigots who make baseless judgments.
Thanks for sharing the link.

Scout said...

yaya canada, commenting on the jack straw thing, has decided to work towards banning men over 40 from going shirtless. i've put in a further request to ban speedos.

will get to sk's link after posting.

Sophie E. said...

Straw did not suggest a "ban" of any sort, nor did he say he wouldn't meet with veiled individuals. So, your chorous against a perceived assault on personal choice is ridiculous.
I certainly don't agree with British foreign policy nor most of what Straw says personally, but that's not the issue here.
In China, women used to have their feet bound, in the Middle Ages many women were forced to wear chastity belts while their men went on the crusades; today, in most of rural India, if a woman's husband dies for any reason, she is ostracized by hers and his family, and often physcially assaulted.
In most Muslim countries the crime of rape or any violence against women is all but condoned.
The veil constitutes oppression of women, pure and simple - there is nothing in the Koran that advocates it. The issue is similar to Catholics and condoms, or Jehovah Witnesses alowing minors to receive life-saving transfusions.
I've spoken with a few "modern" Muslim women and they told me how grim it was to be an orthodox Muslim woman, and the harsh barriers they faced trying to gain personal freedoms. Certainly this does not mean that society should simply impose its rules on another culture/religion - however,I do believe that the fundamental rights of women trump mysongynistic religious rights. But progess will and I suppose, must, be slow and gradual.
I know that comparisions with the good old nazis is hip for right wing goons these days, but alas I can think of no better example. Think Hitler Youth. I actually met a former member, and he told me how it took him years to fully get over the indoctrination and how relieved and horrified he was when he finally did.
To wit - Straw did NOT advocate the banning of veils, or even say that he would not deal with those who wear it. Get your facts straight, talk to some "modern" Muslim women, and stand up for the rights of your fucking gender, which are still denied the world over.

sophie e. said...

apologies for mis-spelling of mysogeny......typo. important word, damn damn damn.

Amelopsis said...

I stand tall for my gender and find it ludicrous that you'd suggest otherwise. (and know more than a few muslim women very well, despite your presumptuous notion to assume otherwise)

Just like abortion or any other right, I defend the RIGHT of WOMEN TO CHOOSE.
What I do NOT defend is the right of ANYONE to determine what is or is not suitable for another to choose as attire.

And again, despite your presumptuous desire to villify the various forms of the Veil, this does not translate into defending the perceived right of a man (muslim, christian, jewish or spaghetti monster follower) to demand that a woman wear a veil, or cover her shoulders, her ankles or anything else.

BUT if I damned well want to wear a veil, I don't think it's in any 'community's best interest' to debate the matter.

What I DO NOT stand for, are so-called women's liberation advocates who's fingers are on hair triggers waiting to decry anything that seems strange to their western sensibilities as being a control method, or a means to stifle women's rights.

I stand by my characterization of Straw's suggestion for debate on the matter as insulting and baseless, indicative only of his own lack of personal ability to overcome differences of culture.

This post, and Straw's comments are not raising debate about the ways in which religious dogma is used to oppress women or other minorities; they are about the ability of women in a veil to conduct their normal day to day business among other people in public.

Straw thinks this should be an issue.

I think the suggestion is barbaric.

Amelopsis said...

As an afterthought, Sophie E., would you suggest that we 'liberate' the Amish, the Menonite, the Sikh, the Catholic Nuns in habit?
Shall the Pennsylvania Dutch be jeered, invaded or cajoled to remove their bonnets when they go into town and encounter people not of their culture?

They too cover their heads out of religious conviction, I don't see politicians suggesting social debate about the awkwardness of discourse with any religious woman other than Muslims.

This is simply a thinly veiled (no pun intended) manner of encouraging religious and ethnic bigotry; in a country that is rife with prejudice and who's established ruling bodies regularly excercise one rule of law for whites and perceived non-ethnics, and quite another for every 'OTHER'.

It is the thin end of the wedge when what's needed is a sledghammer to open peoples minds. Only after that can we truly hope to improve the rights of women in other cultures and other countries.