Should muslim women remove their veil in stores?

[Low Frost]

Guess you know alot more about the laws against muslim women than Actual muslim women, cause everyone i've spoken to so far have said it to be a law enforced by their men, but i guess you know much better then those who have actually lived in countries where it was against the law.

Really now? Intresting... Most muslim women I've talked to has told me that the wear the Hajib as a choice of their own, not because they are forced to...

Anyhow, this is a very difficult question, on one hand, what gives us the right to decide what someone is going to wear, on the other, there's this "security risk". The headscarf version should be allowed EVERYWHERE though, no question about it...

{what gives us the right to decide what someone is going to wear, on the other, there's this "security risk}
This is the line that actually matters. Funny thing is, that most of the people posting who favor this are not muslim, nor any other group outside of the status quo. When you walk in to a store and notice that you are being followed by 2 or more people, repeatedly, over the course of a few years, you tend to think more about such things.

 

[Arachon]

When you walk in to a store and notice that you are being followed by 2 or more people, repeatedly, over the course of a few years, you tend to think more about such things.

I'm not quite sure I get the point of that...

 

[Tattaglia]

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

My religion requires that I wear a ski mask and carry a shotgun at all times, especially in banks. People should put themselves and their businesses at risk to conform with my ridiculous religion.

*facepalm*

Woaah, your rebuttal skills astound me.

Yes, I am ignoring the context, because cultural and religious tolerance are closer to my heart than retail security.

Why thank you, Mr Scott! You have perfectly summed up my feelings regarding this topic. Now, would you prefer one muffin or two? They're boysenberry, I'm afraid.

I love when people ignore my argument entirely and instead resort to personal attacks. It really shows a unique understanding of the matter at hand.

Why should we have to be put at risk for their rules? People like to throw around the word tolerance...but what are you tolerating? You're tolerating, neigh condoning a practice that commands all women dress like penguins.

Why yes, I guess I did give you an underhanded personal attack. I'm sorry. But I'm not changing my opinion for you to prove a point that disregards a culture for security. I'm fairly certain I'm not condoning it, because I like to see people's faces rather than fabric. But I'm tolerating it, like I do with everything else.

 

[Tattaglia]

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

My religion requires that I wear a ski mask and carry a shotgun at all times, especially in banks. People should put themselves and their businesses at risk to conform with my ridiculous religion.

*facepalm*

Woaah, your rebuttal skills astound me.

Yes, I am ignoring the context, because cultural and religious tolerance are closer to my heart than retail security.

Why thank you, Mr Scott! You have perfectly summed up my feelings regarding this topic. Now, would you prefer one muffin or two? They're boysenberry, I'm afraid.

Pshaw, Don Tattaglia, boysenberry is my favorite muffin flavour.

It is? Well, that's fantastic! Unfortunately, I don't have them. I merely asked you if you preferred boysenberry to other flavours, as part of a survey for the Fiji government.

Now, salmon or tuna?

 

[Azeban]

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

My religion requires that I wear a ski mask and carry a shotgun at all times, especially in banks. People should put themselves and their businesses at risk to conform with my ridiculous religion.

*facepalm*

Woaah, your rebuttal skills astound me.

Yes, I am ignoring the context, because cultural and religious tolerance are closer to my heart than retail security.

Why thank you, Mr Scott! You have perfectly summed up my feelings regarding this topic. Now, would you prefer one muffin or two? They're boysenberry, I'm afraid.

I love when people ignore my argument entirely and instead resort to personal attacks. It really shows a unique understanding of the matter at hand.

Why should we have to be put at risk for their rules? People like to throw around the word tolerance...but what are you tolerating? You're tolerating, neigh condoning a practice that commands all women dress like penguins.

Why yes, I guess I did give you an underhanded personal attack. I'm sorry. But I'm not changing my opinion for you to prove a point that disregards a culture for security. I'm fairly certain I'm not condoning it, because I like to see people's faces rather than fabric. But I'm tolerating it, like I do with everything else.

Why? Why is her right to wear the face mask greater than his right to refuse service to people based on conditions of choice.

Tolerance is a very important thing that this world needs more of, but you don't need to tolerate a person's choices just because they're founded in culture. You tolerate their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc, because it's not their fault, and there's nothing wrong with it. Actions however, can be positive and negative, as long as we're both working in a framework where good and evil exist.

 

[Low Frost]

When you walk in to a store and notice that you are being followed by 2 or more people, repeatedly, over the course of a few years, you tend to think more about such things.

I'm not quite sure I get the point of that...

I facepalm'd irl, just so you know. I mean, when someone trails you because they believe that you, or someone who shares some trait with you, is a thief and a crook arbitrarily for no other reason than a easily identified trait that makes you as "other", you tend to empathise with others in the same situation.
In this case, I see no reason a muslim women in traditional coverings would have remove them to enter a mundane shop. If you were talking about a place were security was highly important, it would be different. The bank around the corner from me has a sign that states that you must remove scarves, ski masks, etc before entering. If I had to do the same thing to enter Walmart, I'd go to the Target next door. Fear and suspicion based on stereotypes alone is not a good enough reason to enact such a broad rule.

 

[Azeban]

When you walk in to a store and notice that you are being followed by 2 or more people, repeatedly, over the course of a few years, you tend to think more about such things.

I'm not quite sure I get the point of that...

I facepalm'd irl, just so you know. I mean, when someone trails you because they believe that you, or someone who shares some trait with you, is a thief and a crook arbitrarily for no other reason than a easily identified trait that makes you as "other", you tend to empathise with others in the same situation.
In this case, I see no reason a muslim women in traditional coverings would have remove them to enter a mundane shop. If you were talking about a place were security was highly important, it would be different. The bank around the corner from me has a sign that states that you must remove scarves, ski masks, etc before entering. If I had to do the same thing to enter Walmart, I'd go to the Target next door. Fear and suspicion based on stereotypes alone is not a good enough reason to enact such a broad rule.

Why is the fear based on stereotypes? In the cases where people in Muslim dress robbed stores, the thieves did not belong in the dress to begin with. The policy is there so that the face is not obscured, not to scare away Muslims. This isn't a policy that says they can't come in. This is a policy that says they can't come in while wearing something. A store owner is within his rights to make such policies. People who find this action offensive are within their rights to shop elsewhere.

 

[Arachon]

I'm not quite sure I get the point of that...

I facepalm'd irl, just so you know. I mean, when someone trails you because they believe that you, or someone who shares some trait with you, is a thief and a crook arbitrarily for no other reason than a easily identified trait that makes you as "other", you tend to empathise with others in the same situation.
In this case, I see no reason a muslim women in traditional coverings would have remove them to enter a mundane shop. If you were talking about a place were security was highly important, it would be different. The bank around the corner from me has a sign that states that you must remove scarves, ski masks, etc before entering. If I had to do the same thing to enter Walmart, I'd go to the Target next door. Fear and suspicion based on stereotypes alone is not a good enough reason to enact such a broad rule.[/quote]

Oh... Sorry, I'm pretty tired O,o

But yeah... you make a good point

 

[Tattaglia]

Spoiler

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

My religion requires that I wear a ski mask and carry a shotgun at all times, especially in banks. People should put themselves and their businesses at risk to conform with my ridiculous religion.

*facepalm*

Woaah, your rebuttal skills astound me.

Yes, I am ignoring the context, because cultural and religious tolerance are closer to my heart than retail security.

Why thank you, Mr Scott! You have perfectly summed up my feelings regarding this topic. Now, would you prefer one muffin or two? They're boysenberry, I'm afraid.

I love when people ignore my argument entirely and instead resort to personal attacks. It really shows a unique understanding of the matter at hand.

Why should we have to be put at risk for their rules? People like to throw around the word tolerance...but what are you tolerating? You're tolerating, neigh condoning a practice that commands all women dress like penguins.

Why yes, I guess I did give you an underhanded personal attack. I'm sorry. But I'm not changing my opinion for you to prove a point that disregards a culture for security. I'm fairly certain I'm not condoning it, because I like to see people's faces rather than fabric. But I'm tolerating it, like I do with everything else.

Why? Why is her right to wear the face mask greater than his right to refuse service to people based on conditions of choice.

Tolerance is a very important thing that this world needs more of, but you don't need to tolerate a person's choices just because they're founded in culture. You tolerate their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc, because it's not their fault, and there's nothing wrong with it. Actions however, can be positive and negative, as long as we're both working in a framework where good and evil exist.

Ugh, whatever. You win. Go bask in the glory of having won the interwebs, I just don't feel like an argument tonight.

EDIT: Spoiler-ified for convenience.

 

[Low Frost]

When you walk in to a store and notice that you are being followed by 2 or more people, repeatedly, over the course of a few years, you tend to think more about such things.

I'm not quite sure I get the point of that...

I facepalm'd irl, just so you know. I mean, when someone trails you because they believe that you, or someone who shares some trait with you, is a thief and a crook arbitrarily for no other reason than a easily identified trait that makes you as "other", you tend to empathise with others in the same situation.
In this case, I see no reason a muslim women in traditional coverings would have remove them to enter a mundane shop. If you were talking about a place were security was highly important, it would be different. The bank around the corner from me has a sign that states that you must remove scarves, ski masks, etc before entering. If I had to do the same thing to enter Walmart, I'd go to the Target next door. Fear and suspicion based on stereotypes alone is not a good enough reason to enact such a broad rule.

Why is the fear based on stereotypes? In the cases where people in Muslim dress robbed stores, the thieves did not belong in the dress to begin with. This isn't a policy that says they can't come in. This is a policy that says they can't come in while wearing something. A store owner is within his rights to make such policies.

But then, that is the experience of a single store. Someone who owns a store can make whatever rules they want, but also must be willing to take the consequences of singling out and marginalising a part of the consumer community. I doubt that there is a pandemic of stores being robbed in such a manner, otherwise Halloween would be a nightmare for retail stores.
tl;dr isolated incidents are usually not enough by the communities reckoning to enact sweeping policy changes targeting a specific group. When you have been on the recieving end of such thinking, you would think more about the consequences of such a thing, and perhaps be in a better position to empathize with those you would so callously seek to blackball.

 

[Low Frost]

I'm not quite sure I get the point of that...

I facepalm'd irl, just so you know. I mean, when someone trails you because they believe that you, or someone who shares some trait with you, is a thief and a crook arbitrarily for no other reason than a easily identified trait that makes you as "other", you tend to empathise with others in the same situation.
In this case, I see no reason a muslim women in traditional coverings would have remove them to enter a mundane shop. If you were talking about a place were security was highly important, it would be different. The bank around the corner from me has a sign that states that you must remove scarves, ski masks, etc before entering. If I had to do the same thing to enter Walmart, I'd go to the Target next door. Fear and suspicion based on stereotypes alone is not a good enough reason to enact such a broad rule.

Oh... Sorry, I'm pretty tired O,o

But yeah... you make a good point[/quote]
Well, it was nice to have this conversation with you. You can feel how you'd like, but being willing to listen and acknowledge an opposing view is all I really want.

 

[Tattaglia]

I'm not quite sure I get the point of that...

I facepalm'd irl, just so you know. I mean, when someone trails you because they believe that you, or someone who shares some trait with you, is a thief and a crook arbitrarily for no other reason than a easily identified trait that makes you as "other", you tend to empathise with others in the same situation.
In this case, I see no reason a muslim women in traditional coverings would have remove them to enter a mundane shop. If you were talking about a place were security was highly important, it would be different. The bank around the corner from me has a sign that states that you must remove scarves, ski masks, etc before entering. If I had to do the same thing to enter Walmart, I'd go to the Target next door. Fear and suspicion based on stereotypes alone is not a good enough reason to enact such a broad rule.

Oh... Sorry, I'm pretty tired O,o

But yeah... you make a good point
Well, it was nice to have this conversation with you. You can feel how you'd like, but being willing to listen and acknowledge an opposing view is all I really want.

What? On an internet forum? Never, I say! Never!

 

[fierydemise]

A few comments:
1) Many of you underestimate the role pre-existing culture plays in the development of religious traditions. The concept of the hijab (although not by that name) existed long before Islam for a simple reason, it is really hot in the Middle East and North Africa and such garb existed for solely practical purposes hence why most religions of Middle Eastern origin use similar garb as do the native Bedouins. For a similar example of practical garb taking on a cultural/religious significance see the large fur hats worn by some Haredi (ultra-orthodox Jews) sects, a tradition based on the practical fact that Eastern Europe can be very cold. The hijab's role in opressing women is based on faulty interpretations of radical Islamists (those who use Islam for political ends) in countries like Iran and is not the interpretation of majority Muslims.

2) I will accept the notion of banning hijabs if one other condition is met, no other religious belief system is given any extra rights based on their beliefs. Saying screw religion ban the hijab implies that there is no requirement for the government to consider religious beliefs when making policy decsions. Thus a hijab will be non-discirminatory if and only if all other laws designed to respect religious customs are striken from the books as well. In American for example (I know the story is out of Australia however I am not familiar with Australian law) this would end the tax exempt status of religious organizations, stike all blue laws (prohibit alchohal sale on Sundays) and all Sunday shopping laws on the books. It would require Christmas cease to be a national holiday and the postal service deliver mail on Sundays. It would prohibit the use of public lands for religious purposes and overall force a complete secularization of the government at all levels.

3) Do not take the above to mean that I am saying individual stores should not have the right to ban hijabs (a right I believe they already have). Rather such a decision should be decided by each individual store owner and leave the choice of security vs. alienating part of a consumer base to the free market, just as a decision to ban other religious symbols (such as a kippah or cross) should be the right of individual store owners.

 

[Low Frost]

I'm not quite sure I get the point of that...

I facepalm'd irl, just so you know. I mean, when someone trails you because they believe that you, or someone who shares some trait with you, is a thief and a crook arbitrarily for no other reason than a easily identified trait that makes you as "other", you tend to empathise with others in the same situation.
In this case, I see no reason a muslim women in traditional coverings would have remove them to enter a mundane shop. If you were talking about a place were security was highly important, it would be different. The bank around the corner from me has a sign that states that you must remove scarves, ski masks, etc before entering. If I had to do the same thing to enter Walmart, I'd go to the Target next door. Fear and suspicion based on stereotypes alone is not a good enough reason to enact such a broad rule.

Oh... Sorry, I'm pretty tired O,o

But yeah... you make a good point
Well, it was nice to have this conversation with you. You can feel how you'd like, but being willing to listen and acknowledge an opposing view is all I really want.

What? On an internet forum? Never, I say! Never!

Hey, it happens. I enjoy spirited debate, and so few people I know irl are up to having their beliefs challenged.

 

[Gitsnik]

But then, that is the experience of a single store. Someone who owns a store can make whatever rules they want, but also must be willing to take the consequences of singling out and marginalising a part of the consumer community. I doubt that there is a pandemic of stores being robbed in such a manner, otherwise Halloween would be a nightmare for retail stores.

The "stereotype" holds true for most metal-heads as well. Kids in hoodies are watched more closely than kids in their school uniform (when said uniform is worn as it should be, not the whole shirt untucked loose tie etc). Like I said earlier, this doesn't appear to have anything to do with religion - except someone's picked up on it and screamed "omg anti-religious/racist".

 

[Low Frost]

But then, that is the experience of a single store. Someone who owns a store can make whatever rules they want, but also must be willing to take the consequences of singling out and marginalising a part of the consumer community. I doubt that there is a pandemic of stores being robbed in such a manner, otherwise Halloween would be a nightmare for retail stores.

The "stereotype" holds true for most metal-heads as well. Kids in hoodies are watched more closely than kids in their school uniform (when said uniform is worn as it should be, not the whole shirt untucked loose tie etc). Like I said earlier, this doesn't appear to have anything to do with religion - except someone's picked up on it and screamed "omg anti-religious/racist".

And I would imagine people wearing overt gang symbols would be treated the same way. I despise any sort of stereotyping or special treatment. All people are equally suspect in my mind.

 

[Dele]

I don't think a Retailer's Association should have any pull in whether or not by tradition and cultural faith women should remove their hajib. It's like the USDA saying "We move that Jewish individuals are hereby banned from eating kosher food." Or keeping Muslims from wearing turbans in a STORE!

Yes, I am ignoring the context, because cultural and religious tolerance are closer to my heart than retail security.

So now I am allowed to use the n-word when describing black people because it is a hundreds of years old cultural tradition (that still exists) and they must tolerate it. Everyone criticizing my use of language is an intolerant racist that should be jailed for his words.

 

[1337mokro]

No they must not. Why? Because a veil does not insult anyone, it does no harm nor is it racist. If a women wants to wear a veil, and I do press that if SHE HERSELF wants to wear it who are you to criticize them. Have you ever walked past a veiled woman and found yourself inexplicably being insulted and offended by a veil?

What about Punkers and Goths and the like who wear steel spikes, I am thinking they are a bigger security risk than a veil, yet they are still allowed to enter without removing clearly dangerous objects from their vestments. I propose we shut up about tradition and everything and remember that Human rights allow us to dress in our underwear or even in a full medieval suit of armour to go shopping if we feel like. Either everything is right or we should issue government required grey suits so that every1 wears the same crappy clothes and we can't ***** about it.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

What about Punkers and Goths and the like who wear steel spikes, I am thinking they are a bigger security risk than a veil, yet they are still allowed to enter without removing clearly dangerous objects from their vestments. I propose we shut up about tradition and everything and remember that Human rights allow us to dress in our underwear or even in a full medieval suit of armour to go shopping if we feel like. Either everything is right or we should issue government required grey suits so that every1 wears the same crappy clothes and we can't ***** about it.

Agreed, but....

Jackets are a security risk. Did you know that most people who carry guns do so under jackets? We should ban all coats and jackets....

Pants! People can conceal weapons under there. If you take away their jackets then they will simply use their pants. Can't have that in the perfectly safe society we crave so much we are willing to trample all over peoples rights to achieve it... OFF WITH YOUR PANTS!