Have they gone mad?
How and why do we start banning clothing styles?
Hoodies?
For God's sake, there are greater problems.

JK2006 wrote:
Have they gone mad?
How and why do we start banning clothing styles?
Hoodies?
For God's sake, there are greater problems.

I believe even Belgium has jumped on the bandwagon!

Keep people busy busy busy in trivia and nonsense and they avoid picking up their head and looking and seeing what is actually going on in the world.
Although I have followed conspiracy theories and am open minded about them, the contempt the media has amongst the sheeple is becoming a very significant interest to me, the way the media, the establishment and the law work together is something that is very, very disturbing.

Odd isn't it...the home of so many great fashion designers and now fashion becomes law

I cannot for the life of me see the 'problem' here. I regularly go to a part of Sydney full of Asians and Arabs and every second woman is wearing one and all I can think is that they look rather fashionable...and certainly better than the Chavs in Target clothes

My favourite Arab postcard is of a beautiful woman in a blue niqab with the most gorgeous eyes. It is strange that sometimes this can enhance, not lessen, inner beauty. Mind you, it is odd that she is wearing eye makeup to increase her beauty.

Many friends have received this card in the post from me after one of my North African trips.

It's a tricky problem. All of the great rights-based ideologies deriving from the 18th century - French liberty, American independence and feminism - were nurtured by the Enlightenment belief that reason delivers wisdom, and if you think rationally you'll all agree on what is right and wrong. So the moral power of these movements came from their conviction that what they said was true for all people in all places at all times. And Amnesty, liberalism, feminism etc still speak and act with that assumption of universal moral authority today. Yet they do so now in a world where we are also told to respect difference, diversity and subjectivity. So, frankly, the great old liberal ideology is in a bit of a pickle. The French are being more consistent, logical and, perhaps, honest in taking the position they've taken - but they're also more obviously compromised by the modern inclination towards relativism. Personally, on women's rights, I am happily old-fashioned and will remain a universalist - I'm not going to excuse signs of patriarchy by pretending it's a fashion statement.

Well it's a bit like sex isn't it? If both parties want it fine. Forced - not fine. Likewise, women should be allowed to wear anything they want (as should men) as long as they are not forced to do so by others - be they husbands or religious leaders.

Which takes one back to the tradtional Enlightenement liberal conundrum: if a slave is a happy slave, what do you do with logic and reason? Is a happy slave, or a slave who thinks he or she is happy, justification for defending slavery? Most French and Americans didn't want a revolution. Many downstairs servants were staunchly conservative about maintaining servitude. The majority of women in late 19th century/early 20th century Britain, according to research, were not eager to get the vote. It's not, and never has been, an easy issue.

Quite right Pru and we are confronted by the truth; it is rarely if ever black and white; nearly always shades of grey.

By forcing democracy onto Arabs we may be constructing an inefficient and unhappy society for all; where a dictatorship often only means greater misery for some.