Clearly, the customs of Muslim immigrants are not (yet!) against the law,
So, what about saris and salwar kameez in London or Paris?
hopes-n-dreams -- you're right about everything you've said so far. This sort of topic just attracts the C-Span call-in types, that's all.
Quote from: red. on October 18, 2006, 11:09:45 AMhopes-n-dreams -- you're right about everything you've said so far. This sort of topic just attracts the C-Span call-in types, that's all.AHHHH, transforming an interesting subject of debate into a right/wrong dichotomy, and then resorting to an ad hominem. I think I see a bourgeoning political career here!
Alright. Here's the correct answer.Those of you who think that Blair had a point would not make the same argument in support of banning the Yarmulke, the sari, the tutu, etc. You're focused on the veil. Why? Because it's a muslim thing.As an aside, it has little to do with "being foreign": many, and probably most, of those who wear veils are native-born (i.e. born in Britain) and young. It is the equivalent of the revival of pentecostalism here. Unless, of course you want to tell those that have immigrated, say, thirty years ago that they cannot wear the veil, and that their children can. The would be an interesting position to hold, but I think that it would strain your intellectual resources to defend it.Okay, so those darned muslims. Being a muslim thing isn't enough to hold you attention, though. You would presumably not want to force muslims living in Britain to, say, eat pork. (Although, the definition of Libertarian is so flexible these days that who knows, maybe you would tell them what to eat as well as what to wear.)In any case, let's assume that you'd be willing to let them eat pork. So, back to the veil. Why the veil? Let's speculate a little. Maybe you think that veils are worn by "fanatics" who are going to "blow you up". Is that it? Kilts are jolly and veils are scary? Are those great big beards that the men wear scary too? Shall we chop them off? And, because we can't tell the difference between a sikh and a muslim, should we have all those Sikhs in London and Birmingham, Oxford and Bournemouth, York and Cardiff unfurl their turbans and cut their hair? Just in case?That's kinda a good starting point for a discussion.
the problem most have with veils are that they consider them to be forced on women. Given the demographics of what types of Muslims who live in England this simply isn't the case.
I am not going to get into Britain because I am not very familiar with the laws of that country. However, I do know something about Italy and there is a law in effect that any individual cannot conceal themselves in a public atmosphere to the point where it is impossible or difficult to identify that individual (there are obvious exceptions such as during Carnevale, etc... but in "everyday" life, this holds true). This law is applied to all people of all creeds, and recently Muslims in Italy have protested against banning these veils in the public square even though this law is not nor never was focused strictly on Muslims.This is a fine example of a point that I made several posts prior in which I stated that there is nothing wrong whatsoever with a particular minority (or immigrant) group practicing their customs and traditions in the "host" country as long as those customs do not conflict and threaten the law of the land. In this particular case, Muslims continue to protest despite the fact that there is nothing about this law that is directed solely towards them, which subsequently leads to backlash against Muslims within the country.