Tuesday, 17 September 2013

Relevance? Nun

Nuns do not cover their faces.

Nor do old ladies in headscarves.

Nor, until the 1960s, did young ladies in headscarves.
Posted by at

7 comments:

  1. Anonymous18 September 2013 at 07:11

    But laws telling women what to wear would be profoundly un-British.

    Perfectly understandable that they banned burqas in France-a totalitarian statist country with no history of liberty or law that is above power (how many times did the Revolutionaries rip up the Constitution and start again?).

    But Britain, Europe's only historically free country, should have absolutely nothing to do with this.

    If the Left was so concerned about British citizens seeing each others faces, they shouldn't have flung open our borders, and called anyone who opposed it "racist".

    ReplyDelete
  2. David Lindsay18 September 2013 at 17:52

    Requiring people to wear, or not to wear, certain thinsg at certain times or in certain places is very British indeed.

    We do it far more than the Americans, or anyone on the Continent.

    Covering your face, now that is un-British.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous18 September 2013 at 20:30

    Oh, I entirely agree that certain places should require people not to wear certain things "at crtain times in certain places".

    But a blanket state law on what you may wear anywhere, at any time, is an entirely different thing.

    Respectable schools and shops, for example, have been prevented by the Equalities Act from requiring that mothers do not enter their premises in PJ's and dressing gowns.

    Such a ban would be entirely sensible and would bring back basic respectability-but the Left is, of course, against it.

    A blanket law on what you may wear, even when you are not on private or public property, is an entirely different thing-and completely un British.

    It is, however, very French.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Miner's Boy19 September 2013 at 00:38

    I don't see this as something of the left or right, and I don't see it as telling women what to wear. It is decidedly British, a very tolerant society to the point of being too tolerant, to go about our business in an open and carefree manner. Part of this openness is seeing who you are talking to, which can be a gauge of friendliness or aggression. Both are equally important in their way.
    It is also our tradition that those who cover their faces have something to hide. Face recognition is important from the cradle to the grave and it cannot be put aside just because a tiny minority state that it is their tradition - when, actually, it is not. If it is not a tradition in Islamic lands then it must not be accepted as tradition in our land. Tolerance is not one-sided.
    This is nothing to do with being totalitarian or any of these stupid labels, it is to do with respect. Respect for the traditions of the country you live in, and respect for the citizens of that country. Those who demand to wear the full-face veil at all times respect neither and must be treated accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous19 September 2013 at 00:56

    "It is decidedly British, a very tolerant society to the point of being too tolerant".

    This is Orwellian origami speech.

    There is nothing "tolerant" about the state making laws telling women what to wear on their heads.

    In a free country, private property-owners (or public premises such as court houses) may make their own rules on dress code.

    Precisely because we respect private property (and a woman's wardrobe is part of that private property).

    Nobody protests, for example, that workplaces require us to wear uniforms.

    But they would protest, and rightly so, if the state ordered everyone to wear uniforms regardless of whether they even held a job.

    You have no more right to see my face than you have to know my name-unless I wish to engage in some transaction that renders this necessary, such as catching a plane.

    The idea that everyone must be forced to show their face, even if they are walking the Queen's highway minding their own business is like Tony Blair's very, very French idea that everyone must carry badges with their name on them.

    Napoleon came up with that one.

    The Continentals have lived like that since the 18th century. ID cards are just a part of life over there.

    But not in a free country, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Miner's Boy19 September 2013 at 17:23

    "This is Orwellian origami speech."
    Being only a Miner's Boy I will have to look this up in the dictionary.

    I never said that the state should 'make laws telling women what to wear on their heads.' They can wear whatever they want on their heads: just look at the weird and wonderful creations paraded on Ladies Day at Ascot. The point at issue is specifically about face recognition, which is something entirely different. If I were to walk down the street, or appear in court wearing a black balaclava with only eye holes then I would be told in no uncertain terms to remove it. Your face is your window to the world, why would anyone wish to draw the curtains in broad daylight? Or is this also Orwellian origami? Please read my final sentence again. I said: “Those who demand to wear the full-face veil AT ALL TIMES (my emphasis) respect neither and must be treated accordingly.” AT ALL TIMES!

    Of course we respect private property but, again, this respect is two-edged. If someone were to build a large extension to his house and blocked out the light on to his neighbour’s property then legitimate action could be expected and taken under the law.

    Don’t put your own extreme interpretations upon perfectly normal observations. The question is not whether people should be forced to show their face, but more a question of why do some people wish to hide their face from the world, and especially in a court of law?

    It is irrational and extreme interpretations such as yours that exacerbate the problem. It is this attitude of, ‘No one is going to tell me what to do’ which is at the root cause of so many problems in our society today. This is a free country, as you say, because most people respect their neighbours and act accordingly. The threat to a free country is the attitude displayed by you in which you think that a free country gives you the right to behave entirely as you wish.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous21 September 2013 at 19:33

    Miner's Boy.

    What complete and utter poppycock, if I may say so.

    "If I were to... appear in court wearing a black balaclava with only eye holes then I would be told in no uncertain terms to remove it"".

    I've already answered that. Laws requiring dress codes in certain places (uniforms at work etc) are perfectly acceptable.

    State requirements that everyone must dress in a specific way (and reveal their entire face) when walking the Queen's highway and minding their own business, are not acceptable.

    They are an invasion of privacy-and fundamentally antagonistic to the English, a uniquely private people.

    As Orwell said, "nosy parker" was once the biggest insult you could ever hurl at someone-because respect for private life, and private property makes us British.

    The debate is not about courtrooms.

    It's about blanket bans on a certain form of attire.

    Why do the Left always seek to confuse two entirely different issues? Is it deliberate dishonesty? Or just ignorance?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)