Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List

Here is a link to this page:


1 - 3
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: Nesta1 Sent: 5/4/2019 3:55:10 AM


Updated 1508 GMT (2308 HKT) June 27, 2018
(CNN)The Netherlands on Tuesday became the latest European country to introduce a ban on face-covering veils in some public spaces.

The Dutch Upper House of Parliament passed a law banning face coverings, including burqas and niqabs, in public spaces such as schools, hospitals, public transport and government buildings."

This seems like selective targeting of women who choose to express their religious convictions through their choice of attire by people who have swallowed Babylon's baiting them into divisiveness and bigotry based upon religion (e.g., , Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-RastafarI, etc.).

I&i live in Asia where many people wear surgical masks (and now "fashion" surgical masks) both indoors and outdoor to reduce their inhalation of particulate/aerosol contaminants and pathogens. So many people do this (including traffic police officers and airport officials) that it's difficult for me to gauge what the reaction would be to a law banning the practice.

Is it fair to single out one gender for their religious-based attire and impose a legal ban on their freedom to dress as they choose in public? Should we lay down and accept it if Babylon passes laws banning dreadlocks, peyot, beards, dastaar, shtreimel, dread tams etc. or should we stand up in solidarity with the Muslim women of Europe who are protesting and resisting this infringement of their rights?

Messenger: Orsemout Sent: 5/4/2019 5:13:39 PM

In the case of terrorists being recognized by technology i.e Facial recognition I think it's a good thing. Facial coverings are men invented to oppress women and that can never be a good thing anyway. Men can wear Burka's and dress up as women to fool authorities. If they want to live in the West they should learn the language and dress appropriately like we have to do in their countries. Multiculturalism will always fail unless these simple rules come to pass.

Messenger: Nesta1 Sent: 5/5/2019 1:49:20 AM

I don’t really know the details of the origin of facial coverings in Islam although I believe that it dates back over a thousand years so its not really possible to judge its origins in the context of modern social mores (e.g. similar to the adherence to modest attire observed by many orthodox and/or conservative Christian and Jewish women). I too was inclined to view the conservative attire of Muslim women, especially the niqab or face covering veil, as a form of male control over women until I spent some considerable time in predominantly Muslim countries and also did some reading of books/articles by Muslim women, and learned that that is not universally the case. While we are all familiar with stories of extremes like some places in Afghanistan where women have purportedly been persecuted for failure to adhere to modest dress standards; women from many predominantly Muslim countries are free to choose their attire and very frequently opt of their own volition to adhere to traditional standards. Many do so out of their reverence for Allah and the Teachings of the Quran while simultaneously enjoying the fact that it forces everyone (including men) to judge them by their character and not by their physical appearance (i.e., they appreciate being regarded as people rather than as sexual or beauty contest objects). Many also express feelings of privacy and security that come from the fact that they are not promoting/stimulating unwanted male attention. [Note: I've heard a number of mullahs comment on the issue of appropriate public-space attire for Muslim women and they have been consistent in asserting that hair covering with a scarf or hijab is called for by the Quran whereas face covering with a veil is completely optional and voluntary (i.e., not called for specifically by the Quran).]

I appreciate the argument about assimilation into other cultures which is really the crux of this reasoning: Should a women be forced by law to conform to the mores of the society in which she lives if those mores are at odds with her religious beliefs? I think you’ve hit the nail of the head with your reference to facial recognition technology – as a practical matter, that’s probably what these European laws are really directed at. Babylon, which has no inherent concern for human rights, likes to use “women’s rights” as a Trojan horse for it own agendas, such as when the justification for the illegal U.S. invasion & occupation of Afghanistan morphed from being the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden into a crusade to champion the rights of Afghan women.

1 - 3

Return to Reasoning List

Haile Selassie I