Should muslim women remove their veil in stores?

[sequio]

None of those examples were Muslim women.

Actually those cases are of MEN wearing those not women let alone the ones of the right belief to call for wearing them so from your links the people who should have them havn't done any such crimes.
Note: the 2nd and 3rd link are the same crime case.

I'd say they shouldn't be required to remove them unless the stores plan on removing religion based themes completly from there shops if there asking one religion to not do something with no direct risk

Though i don't agree with the Muslum belief that women are required to wear them I'd never demand them to remove it to shop anyware.

None of those are Muslim women or even actual Muslims committing the crimes. The hijabs are just being used as disguises. Really this is a matter of telling if they're a woman or not. Therefore, Muslim women must now wear tight shirts.

(Hope i got the coding right)
Ok, where to start. "they weren't women." WELL NO SHIT!! That was the point, you can't tell immediately whether they are indeed female muslims or not. There in lies the problem: do you expose yourself to a security risk when the threat is so ambiguous? Obvious answer: NO. Secondly, why would you shop at a place that is discriminatory? I see people like that everywhere, who ***** about some store (walmart, bestbuy, verizon, etc.) and then shop there and use their services anyway and then complain when things aren't their way. JUST DON'T GO THERE. Spend you money where you think a business should be supported. It's a free country! No one is holding a gun at you telling you to shop there or face consequences.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,24916230-5017672,00.html
I find it appropriate for muslim women to remove their veils as they enter the store and put them back on when they leave.

Are there really a massive string of robbies or thefts caused by women in veils?

This seems rediculous.

 

[Dubiousduke]

I don't have to take my hat off in a store, though I could have a gun or knife in there..

 

[Abedeus]

I don't have to take my hat off in a store, though I could have a gun or knife in there..

What about a grenade or a small nuclear bomb with a detonator? Because you can't, like, glue a knife or a gun to your head. You can glue a cluster grenade, though.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

No. It's their religion. Deal with it.

Actually I'm pretty sure its not thier religion but thier culture, is why women in the midle east are treated like animels. Though I'm not totally sure but I have read a little from their holy books (I'm catholic) Its pretty peacfull stuff exept thier prophet having like 28 wives. The propblem is people like the taliban keep twisting the word of thier holy book the Koran.

 

[sequio]

I don't have to take my hat off in a store, though I could have a gun or knife in there..

I get asked to take my fidora off all the time =(.

 

[Dele]

I find bherkas (is that how its spelt?) an infringement on human liberties, and certainly one of the most sexist things around today. Women are forced by law to wear them in most ME countries (Iran, Saudia Arabia etc), and as more egalitarianist western countries, we should condemn their use.

Here in the UK, girls are are forced by law to wear skirts no matter how cold it is outside and no matter how creepy their teachers are.

But there is a difference isn't there, this is jolly ole' England, and thus above reproach. Johnny Foreigner can take his customs and culture and F*** off.

*rolls eyes*

I seriously laughed on this one. You guys are close of reaching the Multiculturalistic Nirvana (Yugoslavia). Seriously UK seems more and more of an country segragated into different cultures than a healthy state.



I would like to define what makes people tolerant/intolerant for the purpose of this discussion and would appreciate some feedback.

Intolerant host: Cant stand people of other cultures/races and is openly hostile to them.
Tolerant host: Understands that some people are different and has nothing against different cultures/races as long as they are tolerant and reasonable themselves.
Intolerant immigrant: Openly promotes own culture/race and fails to compromise between host culture and his own.
Tolerant immigrant: Respects host culture and compromises accordingly.
(replace the word immigrant with any minority group)

It seems to me that many people fail to realize that it is not always the white heterosexual male that is intolerant, but others can be too. If a muslim woman refuses to take her veil off on places that such is demanded (airports, shops etc.), it is intolerance on HER part. I personally rarely have anything against different people and different cultures IF and only IF they try to respect the laws and basic customs of the host country. Being part of a group x should not give you any extra rights and privileges, unlike the current situation where people are sued for racism the second they demand equality.

 

[742]

if someone walks into a bank wearing a ski mask... people get REALLY nervous, maybe a little less so if its cold out, but they dont let people go into a room likely less covered by security cameras, where theyre alone with someone that likely has no martial arts training (you have a hostage before anybody even sees you if your strong or well trained, as bank employees-especially the females are known for their strength and extensive combat training) and have time to remove concealed weapons from big clothing at their lesure without anyone noticing, get into the wiring of the security system or something, so that when the tellers hit the alarm it doesnt function.

if someone tries to set me on fire or throw rocks at me, i dont particularly care if its a christian religious thing and they made sure to tie me to a stick first. both things (being set on fire and having rocks thrown at me) really tend to ruin my day. in fact, being tied to a stick would make it worse. and if i see someone else ritualistically burning their face off... well i might not try to stop them if i know its a religious thing, but your not going to stop me from either throwing up or looking away.

i dont see why religion gets so much respect when basic human freedoms and biological conditions get so little. if it doesnt hurt me, fine, whatever, believe that all of reality is controlled by a giant slab of bacon that throws frying pans at nonbeleivers. i can respect your crazy, as long as it doesnt insult me. if for example, your religion seriously believes that people with brown hair are subhuman, and inferior to people of all other hair colors, it might be a good idea to hire a food taster if i offer you a meal.

 

[PersianLlama]

No. It's their religion. Deal with it.

Yes, but its still a stupid religion (aren't they all?).

Those who harass believing men and believing women undeservedly, bear (on themselves) a calumny and a grievous sin. O Prophet! Enjoin your wives, your daughters, and the wives of true believers that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad) That is most convenient, that they may be distinguished and not be harassed.

So, what, like wear a jumper or something? No one would look twice at you. I fail to see how that is convenient.

And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings (khimars) over their bosoms (jaybs), and not display their ornaments except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments.

To be honest I don't, and don't think you should legislate against, people wearing anything they want. BUT, it is not an option for a lot of women who wear it. Without wanting to sound prejudice I think less of any person wearing one, or at least the person forcing them to wear it.

To me it does not stand as a symbol of religion, it stands as a symbol of oppression.

Worth drawing out this bit: or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex. Oh there's a surprise, shame of sex. You mean the thing that a vast majority of the population will engage in, enjoy and seek out; and is necessary to humanity.

Eh, a lot of Muslim women prefer to wear, it's their choice so let them. If Muslim women have to remove their veils, then Christians can't wear crosses because they could potentially hurt someone. (You can really do that with anything...)

 

[darkless]

Well people have to take down hoods walking into shops why shouldnt they have to take off something that completely obscures there face I'm not racist but that makes alot of sense.

 

[stompy]

Uh, guys, you know the article is asking for a ban on hijabs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab]? You know, the things that allow for the woman's face to be revealed... in light of this, how is it a security risk?

That, or the writer of the article needs to brush up on their subject matter...

 

[Silver]

Damn. This has gone on long.

Personally, I think a religion or belief system can be practised freely as long as it doesn't hurt, or endanger anyone else.

That means that wearing a veil may be stupid, ignorant and oppresive for all I care, but it doesn't matter because it doesn't affect me.

However, when it comes to situations where it does affect me, like say a firefighter wearing it instead of a helmet, police wearing it instead of recognized hats, or someone in a store, or other place that needs to be easily identifiable, then it shouldn't be allowed.

If it's a veil that's not in the way, then sure. I know a muslim girl who wears a veil that covers only her hair, her face is nice and visible. No problem. (Unless she's a firefighter)

The beliefs of one person should never be allowed to interfere with more than that particular persons life however, especially not a bad way. Therefore, no, religious symbols that hides your appearance should not be allowed.

Alternatively, if they really must wear something like that, then no one can be held accountable for killing or maiming them in a robbery or similar situation. Oh, and it's also free game to arrest everyone wearing a similar veil for stealing something in a store if one does because it's impossible to identify between them. Nothing personal, but if you endanger other people or their property through your religion, (or any other reason, stupid or not) you should be held accountable for it.

 

[JWAN]

I mean, if they are robbing the place then just do what your supposed to do with robbers, shoot them/taze/mace/rush them, chances are they wont be able to get far wearing ankle length dresses anyway. If they are doing what Osama tells them to do it wont matter because everything will be up in smoke given the amount of time they gave the fuse.

I don't think they need to take it off because they will do what they are there to do veil or not.

 

[JWAN]

Well people have to take down hoods walking into shops why shouldnt they have to take off something that completely obscures there face I'm not racist but that makes alot of sense.

First question, why are Muslim women out of the kitchen?

Because I got shot at so they COULD leave the kitchen and go to school/be apart of the community.

 

[Gitsnik]

Uh, guys, you know the article is asking for a ban on hijabs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab]? You know, the things that allow for the woman's face to be revealed... in light of this, how is it a security risk?

That, or the writer of the article needs to brush up on their subject matter...

If that's actually what the writer meant (to be honest I didn't know the difference till we slugged this far into the debate) then hell no they/she shouldn't be asked to remove it. (Edit: BECAUSE IT'S NOT OBSCURING THE FACE - which is the whole argument)

It's ironic that this thread started last night (I was there!) because today, on my way into the centre of the city (Adelaide, SA, Aus) I was doing my usual: walking fast, eye-balling everyone (quick glances to check for threats and shortest path to negotiate the crowd) when I got thrown the dirtiest look my a woman in full face cover. Could see her eyebrows furrow down at me and everything - when I glared back she got all surprised. So apparently even though she was just sitting on a bus chair waiting for one to show up, she figured that it was possible to get away with giving the "evil eye" to anyone she wanted because they couldn't see her do it.

Oh and I'm asked to remove my hat all the time in stores, and if I'm wearing sunglasses I am asked to remove them. Common courtesy and so-called-common-sense says you lift them off your eyes anyway.

 

[xxDarlenexx]

secondly, its a dumb religous rule, .

It's not for you to judge what should or shouldn't be important/dumb to them based on your own opinions.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

Personally I disagree with the veil entirely. It is merely a vehicle for the disempowerment of women in a overly patriarchal society, by removing their identity. It saddens me when women in a full niqhab with, just the eyes showing, say that they don't feel confident without it. It's a form of mental conditioning to keep the women meek.

If you are interested, I'd recommend Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi as it shows what happened in Iran, the veil and dress codes being mandatory after the Shah was removed from power and the Islamic Revolution took hold.

Sorry, you are. If you say a religion is stupid as hell (or any part of it) you are an intolerant racist.

And this is the kind of response that has us walking on eggshells so we don't offend anyone. No one said they hated the people, just that they disagree with the traditions that they follow.
Huzzah for free speech?

I agree completely, but it is part of their culture and therefore a part of them.

On the flipside to that, I believe 'when in Rome' comes into play. Not to say that they are not part of the country, their culture is accepted. However when one's culture clashes with the culture of a country that is predominantly another ethnicity, that is when one unfortunately must conform, and I do agree it is a security risk.

It is not unfair in my opinion, I mean father christmas was banned in some parts of the UK. I most certainly do not agree with it but if that is not a step towards equality then I don't know what is.