I hate Sarkozy but he's got a point there.

 

 

Whispers to Mark: Mark, careful with your assertion that men are rational and ethical. Remember that women, being the weaker sex, rely on their perceived sexual power over men to inspire self-esteem.

 

Yells: Why yes, Cobalt! When I see a girl's ankle I just can't control myself! Thank goodness for the police to make me think twice before I sexually harass women!

 

ANKLES! SEE! HARDCORE! I knew it! :snobby:

Once I started humping Steve Jobs when he was in the middle of announcing the 2nd gen iPod mini, because his turtleneck exposed some jugular. It was a faux pas for the ages.

Once I started humping Steve Jobs when he was in the middle of announcing the 2nd gen iPod mini, because his turtleneck exposed some jugular. It was a faux pas for the ages.

 

+7 rainbow points

hahahaaha

I like that a man is trying to tell women what should offend us. :laugh4:

 

If they wanna wear it, they can. If they don't, they won't. What is the deal? xD

I like that a man is trying to tell women what should offend us. :laugh4:

 

If they wanna wear it, they can. If they don't, they won't. What is the deal? xD

 

The deal is that it isn't culturally acceptable for women to walk around "western" streets like that, just as it apparently isn't culturally acceptable for people to walk around the streets of Islamic countries bearing flesh of any kind.;)

Otherwise I reckon if people should be able to wear whatever they want, they should be allowed to walk around completely naked too.:smug:

I think it's very culturally acceptable for people to do it here since we don't really give a shit what people wear, are you saying you have an issue with people holding up to their religious beliefs Mark?

 

Walking around naked is also a completely different thing.

I think it's very culturally acceptable for people to do it here since we don't really give a shit what people wear, are you saying you have an issue with people holding up to their religious beliefs Mark?

 

Walking around naked is also a completely different thing.

 

No weirder than someone walking around wearing what looks like an oversized blanket with two eyeholes.:rolleyes:

 

Religious beliefs could be used as an excuse for anything.

On that basis, naturists could form a religion and argue that they were perfectly entitled to walk around naked because of their "beliefs".

Therefore you have to use what's socially acceptable as the guideline, not religion.

If France passes a law banning the wearing of burkhas, anybody in France would have to abide by that law just as anybody in Saudi Arabia has to refrain from wearing any "flesh-revealing" clothing or suffer the consequences (as many have).

I don't think anyone has a problem with anything that covers the hair, but burkhas are completely unnecessary and extreme.;)

No, madam, it's you who have offended MY values

 

Last updated at 10:35 AM on 17th June 2009

 

 

• Comments (136)
  
• Add to My Stories
  

 

 

Burkha rage: The traditional dress can make officials back off

 

On a train to London, a young woman wearing a burkha, with only her heavily made-up eyes peeping out, did not have a valid ticket.

 

Challenged by the guard, the young woman gave a litany of excuses. She had left her bag at her boyfriend's, he had bought the ticket, she had no money on her...

My friend Jane, who was in the same carriage, noticed how the guard became nervous as the Muslim girl presented herself as an innocent in a society she didn't understand.

Instead of issuing a penalty fine, the guard backed off, shrugging his helplessness at the other passengers.

So imagine my friend's surprise when she got off at the same station as burkha girl and saw this 'penniless innocent' whip out a credit card from under the folds of her dress with which she promptly bought a Tube ticket.

Jane was so incensed she sent me a text message, explaining what she'd witnessed. It ended: 'Attack of Burkha Rage. Grrr.'

Jane is not a BNP voter. She is a university lecturer who specialises in the developing world.

 

Yet Burkha Rage has become our personal shorthand for someone taking the mickey out of our country and its tolerant ways.

Despite a growing acceptance that multi-culturalism has been deeply damaging to race relations, there are still almost weekly opportunities for a fit of Burkha Rage.

 

Look at Fata Lemes, the Muslim bar waitress who won £3,000 compensation this week for quitting her job after she objected to wearing a red cocktail dress.

Apologies if I find it hard to keep a straight face, but my jaw keeps dropping open. Miss Lemes took the job in a bar and left after eight days, claiming managers asked her to wear a dress that made her look like a prostitute.

Actually, the frock is conservative by London bar standards - more Petersfield garden party than Peter Stringfellow. But fair enough if Miss Lemes didn't like it.

What was not fair enough was her demand for £20,000 compensation.

 

An employment tribunal found that Miss Lemes had 'overstated her trauma'. You can say that again. Her compensation claim was 'manifestly absurd'.

 

Double standard: Fata Lemes in the dress she objected to wearing for her job as a waitress and right in a revealing picture posted on Facebook

 

 

 

Yet instead of telling the 33-year-old to grow up and accept that a British city bar is not readily confused with a convent, the tribunal awarded her £2,919.95.

As a Bosnian Muslim, it said, she 'holds views about modesty and decency which some might think unusual in Britain in the 21st century'.

They might think it was unusual if they had spotted that modest flower Miss Lemes on Facebook wearing a vest top with a gaping cleavage. But that image was not produced in court.

 

 

How exactly are British employers supposed to avoid hurting the feelings of grievance-mongers like Fata Lemes?

Imagine a job interview where a bar manager dared to suggest that a Muslim woman might not feel at ease in their uniform. Before you could say 'Mine's a Cosmopolitan', Miss Lemes would have sued for discrimination.

I'm afraid Fata Lemes is no better than the girl dodging the train fare. Both are quick to hide behind their religious identity and play the victim. Both are happy to embarrass their host nation into ignoring common sense.

 

Let me be clear: there are millions of British Muslims who respect our cultural norms. It's the minority of opportunists who provoke Burkha Rage.

You see it from time to time: the Muslim shop assistant who refused to serve a woman buying First Bible Stories for her grandson because it was 'unclean'.

 

And the disgraceful capitulation of Sainsbury's to Islamic checkout staff who refused to sell alcohol.

Gordon Brown, a recent convert to Britishness, has promised that the emphasis for immigrants must be on fitting in, learning our ways and our language.

 

Yet, only yesterday, a Metropolitan Police chief admitted the bill for translation services for criminals and victims was set to soar to a staggering £20million by 2012.

Scotland Yard blames a growth in 50 distinct communities of more than 10,000 people and having to deal with more than 300 languages.

At no point in the statement is there any mention of compulsory English lessons.

 

No suggestion of people needing to fit in with our ways, rather than us with theirs. I feel a small attack of Burkha Rage coming on.

No weirder than someone walking around wearing what looks like an oversized blanket with two eyeholes.:rolleyes:

 

Religious beliefs could be used as an excuse for anything.

On that basis, naturists could form a religion and argue that they were perfectly entitled to walk around naked because of their "beliefs".

Therefore you have to use what's socially acceptable as the guideline, not religion.

If France passes a law banning the wearing of burkhas, anybody in France would have to abide by that law just as anybody in Saudi Arabia has to refrain from wearing any "flesh-revealing" clothing or suffer the consequences (as many have).

I don't think anyone has a problem with anything that covers the hair, but burkhas are completely unnecessary and extreme.;)

 

Ok lets use "Social acceptance" as a guide (whatever that is).

 

"Weird" is no excuse to say "You should not wear this it is socially unacceptable". Bollocks, a Burkha is in no way offensive to you or to anyone, covering your skin is not offensive, nobody could even perceive it that way. Sure there are long lying connotations about the religion, but that is irrelevant when just dealing with clothing. Nakedness however is offensive to a lot of people and you know that.

 

The fact that you deem them as "unnecessary" just proves how intolerant and ignorant you are. I don't personally like them, but that is no grounds to claim that people should not wear them because they are "unnecessary" and it is certainly no grounds to ban them. You avoiding issue by saying "they do it in Saudi Arabia" does not make up for the fact that it's wrong, just because someone else does something, that doesn't mean it's ok for someone else to do it. Plus that's a very ignorant thing to say as the attitudes towards naked skin in the middle east were not just brought about because some cunt of a leader decided he didn't like skin being shown.

Burqhas are political and not religious. Religion's just the excuse.

 

I believe they should be banned.

When I see a girl's ankle I just can't control myself! Thank goodness for the police to make me think twice before I sexually harass women!

:lol:

 

Well... Mark I don't think that the exemple of naked people was great ...

 

I'm totally for people freedom, so I'm not for forbidding burqa in France (only at school because it's laic;)), but I just don't like the idea, the mentality which goes with it .... This is pure masochism, and this custom is so strong and old that women see it like an obligation, and even those who "want" to wear it are a lil "brainwashed" ...

AND PLEASE STOP AGREEING WITH THE IDEA THAT IT'S NORMAL TO WEAR BURQA BECAUSE MEN WOULD BE EXCITED BY A TINY PART OF SKIN !

Ok lets use "Social acceptance" as a guide (whatever that is).

 

"Weird" is no excuse to say "You should not wear this it is socially unacceptable". Bollocks, a Burkha is in no way offensive to you or to anyone, covering your skin is not offensive, nobody could even perceive it that way. Sure there are long lying connotations about the religion, but that is irrelevant when just dealing with clothing. Nakedness however is offensive to a lot of people and you know that.

 

The fact that Sarkhozy is moving to ban them proves that a lot of people find them offensive, so go put that in your pipe and smoke it.;)

 

The fact that you deem them as "unnecessary" just proves how intolerant and ignorant you are. I don't personally like them, but that is no grounds to claim that people should not wear them because they are "unnecessary" and it is certainly no grounds to ban them. You avoiding issue by saying "they do it in Saudi Arabia" does not make up for the fact that it's wrong, just because someone else does something, that doesn't mean it's ok for someone else to do it. Plus that's a very ignorant thing to say as the attitudes towards naked skin in the middle east were not just brought about because some cunt of a leader decided he didn't like skin being shown.

 

Who cares what the reasons are? Forcing people to cover up against their will in extremely high temperatures is nothing short of sadistic IMO..................... ;)

Burqhas are political and not religious. Religion's just the excuse.

 

I believe they should be banned.

 

Plus there is nothing in the Quoran which states a woman should be covered from head to toe.;)

 

and this custom is so strong and old

 

Archaic and anachronistic, in fact.;)

 

 

AND PLEASE STOP AGREEING WITH THE IDEA THAT IT'S NORMAL TO WEAR BURQA BECAUSE MEN WOULD BE EXCITED BY A TINY PART OF SKIN !

 

Yes - that argument doesn't carry any weight whatsoever. It's a bit like that ludicrous "excuse" that a woman is "asking to be raped" if she wears a short skirt. Complete and utter garbage!!:dozey:

Plus there is nothing in the Quoran which states a woman should be covered from head to toe.;)

 

Oh you've read the Koran?

 

What's the Quoran? Some kind of vegan bible LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Oh you've read the Koran?

 

What's the Quoran? Some kind of vegan bible LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

Shows how much you (don't) know. Koran is only the English spelling.;)

In fact, there are many different spellings about, including Quran and Quraan.

 

 

And many experts who have read and studied the holy book have found nothing to support the "total covering up" notion. That's the point.

Shows how much you (don't) know. Koran is only the English spelling.;)

 

Yes I know. Qur'an is the non English, where did the "o" come from?

 

 

Oh and you haven't read it.

Yes I know. Qur'an is the non English, where did the "o" come from?

 

It's another one of the alternative spellings.

 

 

Oh and you haven't read it.

 

Irrelevant. Many experts and theologians have, and that's good enough for most right-minded individuals.:smug:

I think you'll find it's not one of the alternative spellings GOOGLE TIME:

 

"The Qur’an[1] (Arabic: القرآن‎ al-qur’ān, literally “the recitation”; also sometimes transliterated as Quran, Qur’ān, Koran, Alcoran or Al-Qur’ān) "

 

You haven't read it yourself so don't act like you have.

 

By "Right-Minded", do you mean Right-Wing or do you mean non-mentally ill?

I think you'll find it's not one of the alternative spellings GOOGLE TIME:

 

"The Qur’an[1] (Arabic: القرآن‎ al-qur’ān, literally “the recitation”; also sometimes transliterated as Quran, Qur’ān, Koran, Alcoran or Al-Qur’ān) "

 

You obviously don't know how to Google properly,:smug:

 

http://christianblogs.christianet.com/1168135735.htm

 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061005205651AAXYnGy

 

http://video.google.de/videosearch?q=Quoran&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=F3VCSpmkGpCknQP46sGpAw&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/The_holy_bible_or_the_quoran

 

 

Anyway, this has probably all come about because a direct translation from Arabic is problematic owing to the great differences between Arabic and English.

I know there are connections between all religions, but please you see like I do how some Muslims are totally brainswashed by their religions, more than Christians, and I absolutely hate the way they treat women !

 

Sure, there are stupid women too, but don't even compare a plunging neckline/mini-skirt with seeing a lil part of skin or even hair ! And anyway this NEVER can be an reason to rape a woman !

 

Haha are you talking of me ? :lol: Well I do think I'm not narrow-minded, I'm very tolerant about tolerable things you see :rolleyes:

 

No, I was talking of you. Geez!! It was a comment about how there were a lot of uneducated people in the world with that mentality. That it was not just a Muslim/Islamic thing.

 

It does not matter what how the woman is dressed, whether she shows a lot of skin or very little, it is the mentality that the way a woman dresses and even acts is the reason for a rape. I NEVER SAID I AGREE WITH THAT POINT OF VIEW!! I was just pointing out the reasons/mentality that some people have concerning that. Geez!! Of course, since I said that then I must think that, right? :rolleyes:

 

Did your Muslim friends tell you that they were brainwashed? Or, are you judging them by your own set of values and beliefs? Society tends to judge other societies by their own set of values and beliefs.

 

Whatever. This is f**king ridiculous and waste of time.

 

Whatever. This is f**king ridiculous and waste of time.

 

As are burkhas!!:D

Nathan and Mark arguing over correct alternative spellings of 'koran' = priceless.