Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?

The hijab is not a sign of oppression any more than the mantilla, apostolnik, mitre or yamulkah I mentioned earlier. My duty includes fighting for others to be free. Even if it means wearing yellow and green stripey socks, brown sandals and a pink skirt. Or a hijab.I fight people who seek to restrict freedom, such as yourself, with puritanical views on what free people are allowed to voluntarily wear.

quote:

---

First they came for the terrorists but I did nothing because I'm not a terrorist. Then they came for the extremists, but I did nothing because I'm not an extremist. Then they came for the moderates, but I did nothing because I'm not a moderate. Finally, they came for the single mothers, but by then everybody was hysterical and thought it wasn't enough.

---

ModulousVoluntary is the key word.We are all subject to governments, not to misogynous Muslim men.You have given nothing to help forced women.Quite easy to say what you do not like what I propose but quite harder to suggest what might free those who are oppressed.You are not hurting me at all but are hurting women who are oppressed.Regards
DL

Again, your ignorance shows. Go back and try again.No, I'm not going to do your research for you, the research you should have already done.

But the women very often don't see it any different than what Western society might differentiate between wearing a dress or pants. If a woman chooses to wear a dress, or pants, or a head covering, it is her right.IF she is being oppressed or coerced, she is free to contact the authorities if she is able. I am not at all underplaying the extreme misogyny that is often found in Islam, I am simply saying that not all Muslim women are "forced" to wear them and that banning them would cause more harm than good.

Yes it is. And you want to restrict voluntary action, which is the opposite of freedom. This thought doesn't seem connected to anything. Nor have you. All you have done is make suggestions for forcing free women and forcing forced women into choosing between their government and their religion and their marriage. Well, yes if we are talking about reasonable and intelligent suggestions to free the oppressed - that is a bigger challenge that defeating your naive argument.My first suggestion is that we don't do what you suggest as it is as oppressive as banning the yarmulkah.

From here : That's your idea of morals? Who's going to choose what to tolerate or not? You?I knew your ideas were scary but not as much as they actually are. I'm glad we have laws and charters of rights to protect us from people who think like you.

"Likely" would not agree? You've been shown testimony from women who DO want to wear the hijab. There's no "likely" about it. They DO NOT agree with YOU.You're talking about some hypothetical women who are being "forced" by their husbands to wear the hijab and you're using that as an excuse to oppress ALL Muslim women. Shame on you.

HyroglyphxI see it as doing more good for the majority than harm to the oppressed as I see the majority not wanting to be forced to wear what they do not want to wear.If and when law makers look at such a ban, statistics will play a major role and so far, my side looks good.Regards
DL

AZPaul3You shop that you have not done your own research. Quite lazy of you.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7IrvkhUb3YRegards
DL

Am I right if I say that you seems to be against every bills/charters of rights protecting the rights of the minorities from the dictatorship of the majority?For your sake, I hope you never find yourself in the minority position.

ModulousI said.
Voluntary is the key word.You replied.
Yes it is. And you want to restrict voluntary action, which is the opposite of freedom.----------Are you serious?Every law we have are designed to restrict voluntary actions are they not?Regards
DL

BliyaalYou ignore what I put and use an extreme form of what I put to make your case.Nice honesty that.Regards
DL

ringoYou ignored my use of the word oppressed.You are the one who should feel shame.Regards
DL

BliyaalI am talking of the protection from oppression of a minority of Muslim women in our countries. Exactly what you say your constitution was created to do.What are you talking about?Regards
DL

Yes.
"Everything which is not forbidden is allowed"It makes it no less true that you want to restrict voluntary actions. This infringes on our freedom. There should be a compelling reason to restrict a freedom, something you have not provided.Some homosexuals are nasty partners is not a reason to to ban homosexuality.
Some husbands dominate their wives is not a reason to outlaw certain items of clothing.