Bangladesh bans Islam dress code

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

A Bangladesh court has ruled that people cannot be forced to wear skull caps, veils or other religious clothing in workplaces, schools and colleges.

The ruling came after reports that a college in the north had forced students to wear veils.

The high court also ruled that women cannot be prevented from taking part in sports or cultural activities.

The court said that wearing any form of religious clothing, for students and employees, should be a personal choice.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11054231

[rollin74]

1. good!

:thumbsup:

[PDJane]

2. A Very Good Thing, IMHO......

[Vehl]

3. Very good!

Bangladesh split from Pakistan partly because they had a less fundamentalist view towards religion in politics. This ruling shows they are still true to their founding principle.

[Warpy]

4. Great! The struggle to empower poor women

that Muhammad Yunus started when he founded Grameen Bank is starting to have an effect.

It's one of my favorite donation spots. It's ending poverty and oppression the difficult but effective way, one woman at a time.

[surrealAmerican]

5. k & r

It's good to see tis coming from an Islamic nation.

[davidinalameda]

8. good and surprising

[I Have A Dream]

6. Good for Bangladesh.

:thumbs:

[demosincebirth]

7. the poorest Muslim country stepping out of the middle ages. Good for them!

[Chulanowa]

9. Middle ages?

Oh, right, Muslims default to living in 716 AD, according to some :eyes:

[greiner3]

10. Keep your shirt on;

I'm all for equality and when a major religion keeps half of its adherents as second or third rate citizens then it is time to call them out.

Notice I did not name Islam. This goes for ALL major religions.

[Chulanowa]

11. So why mention the Middle Ages?

Sorry. Maybe you didn't know, but that's a dog whistle you're blowing there.

[pnwmom]

28. Because women feeling required to wear veils was common in the the Middle Ages.

But for the most of the world that ended hundreds of years ago.

[Chulanowa]

46. No it wasn't

I suggest you read more history and less Daniel Pipes. Propaganda bullshit is bad for you, mmmmmkay?

[pnwmom]

27. They do when they require women to wear face-coverings and veils. n/t

[superconnected]

42. That people could require women to wear scarfs and not be equal, equates to the

middle ages for me. I'm glad they've stepped out and passed this legislation.

[Chulanowa]

43. It says "1950's" to me

Considering the story is about businesses and schools with a dress code. You know, like US businesses that required female employees to wear hose and heels?

But that's different, I'm sure. Because ISLAM ARE EVILS.

[amandabeech]

44. Try 2000s.

I was required to wear either a dress or a skirt and hose except on "casual Fridays" as recently as the early 2000s.

In the '50s, very firm foundation garments were required.

That didn't really go out of style until the '70s.

[Chulanowa]

45. Fair enough

I imagine many businesses still ahve the same sort of dress code today.

But a hijab doesn't make a woman's ass perk out and waggle, so I guess that must make it morally reprehensible by comparison or something :shrug:

[David__77]

14. Bangladesh isn't the poorest Muslim country.

There are a number that are more poor.

[emmadoggy]

12. Excellent. nt

[JerseygirlCT]

13. Great news nt

[Lucky Luciano]

15. Yay! nt

[katandmoon]

16. K&R

[PanoramaIsland]

17. Freedom of religion and expression - my faves!

[Turborama]

18. "should be a personal choice" is not exactly a "ban", is it? Misleading headline.n/t

[EFerrari]

19. Well, they are banning the use of dress codes, not the dress itself. n/t

[Turborama]

20. So, the next question is, how exactly do you know someone has been "forced" to wear a skull cap?

Or a burqa/chador?

All the Muslims I know wear their ḥijāb and skull caps by choice.

[defendandprotect]

23. It's a dual msg by government to religious leaders and members ....

it lays a groundwork for free thought and free will --

[Turborama]

25. Maybe so, but that doesn't answer my question.

It's a law which will be implemented how, exactly? When someone is wearing a skull cap you go and ask them if they were forced to wear it? Or you assume they must have been forced and ask them to take it off? I just don't see how this could be implemented.

[defendandprotect]

26. It's more subtle than that . . .. and you have to bring some

gray matter to working it out --

It's a dual msg by government to religious leaders and members ....
it lays a groundwork for free thought and free will --



Obviously, we're talking about organized patriarchal religions which have always

proceeded on violence, dictatorship, force --

Democracy is the enemy of organized patriarchal religion -- and always has been

because it PREVENTS that force from working.

What happens when our government declares the pill and/or abortion suitable for

public use?

Do Catholics use it despite their church's dictates against it?

Do just as many Catholic women as any other women get abortions all over the world?

Answer to both is YES -- and that's why the Vatican and US Catholic Bishops are

have been chasing down people like Bush and Pelosi to try to reassert their control

over women and reproduction by controlling our legislators -- our government.

If it needs to be even clearer for you -- you don't "ask" or "assume" anything --

you let democracy take its course over religious dictates.

[Turborama]

29. There's no need to be patronizing. I live in the largest Muslim country in the world

so I do have some idea of what I'm talking about.

Mahbub Shafique, one of the lawyers who filed the latest litigation, told the BBC how this ruling goes a step further.

"The difference between these two is that, this particular ruling today doesn't apply only on females it also applies to males as well.

"Because any kind of religious attire is imposed, that has been declared illegal to some extent."

Did you read that? Any religious clothing has been made illegal, to some extent.

In my question above I'm considering what that "to some extent" means. IE The real life ramifications for some dude who's been wearing a skull cap when he goes on his bike to the Mosque 5 times a day to pray, for example.

They are mixing the law with religion. Mixing the state with church/mosque/synagogue/temple/banyan tree/whatever.

Making it illegal to wear certain clothes, whatever the reason, is a gross infringement on personal liberty.

[PaulaFarrell]

31. I think you're hugely misinterpreting

They are not banning religion-related clothing, they are banning the forced wearing of religion-related clothing, e.g. veils. People are free to wear or not wear, but cannot be forced to under a 'dress code'. No clothing is becoming illegal at all.

[Turborama]

33. Or the article was written terribly

And I can't read the mind of the person who's words are in quotation marks.

[PaulaFarrell]

34. The article is pretty clear

your interpretaion is suspect:

"A Bangladesh court has ruled that people cannot be forced to wear skull caps, veils or other religious clothing in workplaces, schools and colleges."



"The court said that wearing any form of religious clothing, for students and employees, should be a personal choice ."

There is nothing whatsoever unclear about that. The quote which you mention, well, the person's first language is probably not english, but in the context of the article I understood it fine. You're getting steamed about nothing.

[Turborama]

35. Well

It's a good job I don't give a damn what you think of my interpretation, whether I'm getting "steamed up" or whether it's something I should care about or not.

I don't know you, you don't know me.

Let's just continue leaving it like that.

[whopis01]

32. The only ones infriging on personal liberty are those wanting to impose a religious dress code

It is saying that any kind of religious attire being imposed has been declared illegal to some extent.

If you re-read what you posted, I think you will see that it is the act of imposing the religious attire that is illegal - not the wearing of the attire.

Granted, the way the reporter wrote the article can make it appear at first glance as if the clothing had been made illegal - but reporters are often trying to sell articles on the headline.

In another article the same barrister was also quoted as saying:

"The high court judges passed the order directing that wearing religious attire should be the personal choice of the students or the employees. No one can be forced to wear them,"

and

"Besides, we have noticed that some schools force children as young as five years old to wear veils and skull caps. Following the court order, no schools can now force this attire on their students,"

both of which make it much clearer what the law is about.


http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/bangladesh/Bangladesh-bans-compulsory-religious-wear/Article1-590340.aspx

[Turborama]

36. Thanks

That article does make it clearer.

[defendandprotect]

40. And, hopefully now enough parents will feel strong enough to begin to challenge

the dress codes --

[defendandprotect]

39. Basically, what the ruling is announcing that citizens will be protected from religious dictates....

No one is "mixing" into church affairs --

anymore than when our government begins to protect homosexuals from the intolerance

and hatreds preached by Christianity and other religions here is it "mixing" in church

affairs.

It simply confirms to the public that democracy will prevent any citizen from being

"forced" to wear any religious garb which they do not freely wish to wear!

And -- organized patriarchal religions have always used hierarchies of power to push

thru their dictates upon society -- whether women's rights -- birth control/abortion --

homosexual rights -- or any other issue. Female Genital Mutilation, for instance.




PS: I think anyone who is brought into organized patriarchal religion at a very young

age is indoctrinated into the religion by pressure -- there's simply no other way to

do it -- to override someone's freedom of thought and freedom of conscience is a

tremendous attack on the psyche. And, it also transmits to the child the idea that

solutions to life's problems can successfully be met with authoritian rule.

You didn't mention which Muslim country you are living in -- ?

and whether you are a native of that country?

[Demstud]

30. It would be like any other rule

The person victimized would likely have to file a complaint with the authorities. And while just like here a parent or someone could "force" you to wear something specific, this law means it can't be institutionalized. You question just doesn't make any sense to me. How do we enforce any rule/law?

[defendandprotect]

37. Agree -- -- and complaints could be filed annonymously . . . .

re schools or school officials pressuring anyone --

It hopefully simply reverses the systems whereby religion does pressure society

into following its dictates.

Parents would probably be the final and hardest pressure point --

but as more and more citizens gave up such religious adornments, others would

feel safer in doing so.




It would be like any other rule
The person victimized would likely have to file a complaint with the authorities. And while just like here a parent or someone could "force" you to wear something specific, this law means it can't be institutionalized. You question just doesn't make any sense to me. How do we enforce any rule/law?

[EFerrari]

24. You can't. But you can determine if their workplace or school has a dress code.

This isn't like the ban in France.

[Recursion]

38. When their college mandates it

All Bangledesh said is that workplaces and schools and local governments cannot require it.

[defendandprotect]

22. Let's hope it's closer to an Emmancipation Proclamation... i.e., slaves are freed ....

you can be a slave if you wish -- but you no longer have to be!!

[defendandprotect]

21. Good for them . . . patriarchal religion = the great dictator --

[superconnected]

41. Good for them!

[cosmicone]

47. Bangladeshis have always been creative and intelllectuals

rather than the by and large fanatical and violent tendencies in West Pakistan. I am glad Bangladesh was liberated from Pakistan.

Good for Bangladesh to get out from the misogynistic shackles of Islam.

k&r