Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:They have the right to do as they wish, but they do not have the right to remain free from criticism.

That's why saying "they have the right" is not an effective means of deflecting criticism.

If I stand and yell at somone committing a murder did they still do it, or did they stop due to my criticism. Doesn't change the fact hell any U.S citizen knows we are hated because of what our gov't does. Doesn't change the fact that we are still gonna do it until somone stops us

Frazzled wrote:Mmm...the words of the Dictator. Franco would be proud.

So I take it you enjoy being told what to do by people who don't know what they're talking about? Isn't that why you dislike government, pretty much as a rule?

@ dogma. Are you agreeing with France's decision here or not? Are you just arguing for fun?

GG

Empchild wrote:
If I stand and yell at somone committing a murder did they still do it, or did they stop due to my criticism. Doesn't change the fact hell any U.S citizen knows we are hated because of what our gov't does. Doesn't change the fact that we are still gonna do it until somone stops us

I'm not interested in stopping France from doing anything. I'm discussing something for my own amusement.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Mmm...the words of the Dictator. Franco would be proud.

So I take it you enjoy being told what to do by people who don't know what they're talking about? Isn't that why you dislike government, pretty much as a rule?

How is that different from ANY gov't. Their are always going to be supporters and haters hell here in mass we just elected a REPUBLICAN( holy feth). Their are people already talking smack that he doesn't know what he's doing and the guy hasn't even started yet.

I'm not exactly left wing and aside from times when identification is necessary I can't see any reason to ban burkhas or veils. Ya know what, last time I checked France was one of those nice little free societies and one of the really ugly part of freedom is that occasionally someone is going to do something you don't like, maybe wear a burkha, and that's just tough for you because there's no legal reason they can't. Well there wasn't.

If the woman is willing to show her face for identification purposes and doesn't have obscenities plastered across her mobile tent exactly what reason do you have for telling her she can't dress like that aside from "Well I just don't like what I think that stands for,"? Security? Really? You think walking around like a paranoid bee keeper doesn't draw every eye to you? If you're worried about a suicide bomber I'd spend my time checking backpacks or guys wearing large jackets. Criminals, and terrorist, don't get very far drawing attention to themselves and in a western country like Europe a burkha is going to draw a LOT of attention.

Sorry, but to start infringing on someone's rights I need a better legal foundation for that than, "I just don't like it."

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Mmm...the words of the Dictator. Franco would be proud.

So I take it you enjoy being told what to do by people who don't know what they're talking about? Isn't that why you dislike government, pretty much as a rule?

Well here in the UK, our first past the post electoral system usually means that most people didn't vote for the winning party. That's the thing about democracy; you usually end up having to suck up and live with other people's opinions and rules on how to live your life.

generalgrog wrote:@ dogma. Are you agreeing with France's decision here or not? Are you just arguing for fun?

GG

Disagreeing. Somewhere in the second page I essentially spell it out.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Mmm...the words of the Dictator. Franco would be proud.

So I take it you enjoy being told what to do by people who don't know what they're talking about? Isn't that why you dislike government, pretty much as a rule?

I don't call it tyranny.

Empchild wrote:
How is that different from ANY gov't. Their are always going to be supporters and haters hell here in mass we just elected a REPUBLICAN( holy feth). Their are people already talking smack that he doesn't know what he's doing and the guy hasn't even started yet.

Its not particularly different. The real issue is the degree to which ignorance influences the process of governance. I was just defending myself from being accused of holding dictatorial beliefs.

Frazzled wrote:
I don't call it tyranny.

Disconnected comments. Democracy is prone to tyranny of the majority. Full stop. Government by the ignorant should be inherently bothersome.

dogma wrote:

Empchild wrote:
How is that different from ANY gov't. Their are always going to be supporters and haters hell here in mass we just elected a REPUBLICAN( holy feth). Their are people already talking smack that he doesn't know what he's doing and the guy hasn't even started yet.

Its not particularly different. The real issue is the degree to which ignorance influences the process of governance. I was just defending myself from being accused of holding dictatorial beliefs.

VIVA LA FRAZZ!!!!!!! UP WITH HIM DOWN WITH ALL.. if you have dictorial views who cares, in the end none of us short of shuma will judge you. I see your point, but I also see the point of france made the choice and I for one support it. Now part of that support is due to my own personal bias towards islam and I know that and acknowledge it.

Well, the point is that I don't.

I don't know, weren't there some cases about people who used the body veils in a criminal activity recently?

"A Glasgow jewellery shop has decided to bar individuals wearing face coverings after being robbed by two men in Muslim female dress. BBC News reports.

ATAA Jewellers in the west end of Glasgow was raided by two Asian men entirely covered apart from their eyes."

Yes, I'm sure a misdemeanor dress code violation would have halted their nefarious plans in their tracks.

dogma wrote:Many Muslim women are of the opposite opinion. They feel that the hijab and veil liberate them from male scrutiny; giving them the opportunity to go about their lives without sexual attention. This is particularly evident in Turkey, but has also been the subject of a number of interview projects in Western countries where the degree of open sexualization is much higher than in other parts of the world.

But yes, it is a cultural issue rather than a religious one.

Let me ask you this - when a woman chooses not to wear a burka, who is it that deals with it?

In countries under Muslim majority rule where Sharia Law or similar is in force, it is men. Men in positions of authority, mandated by the government and religious authorities, which are often the same thing. These same governments and religious authorities are dominated by men. Men punish women for not wearing a Burka.

In countries not under Muslim dominance, it is dealt with by men in the home and other men in the community they are part of.

It is entirely possible that many women like wearing a burka, but lets not pretend for a minute it is like they all have a choice in the matter. Some, maybe even most, I have no idea, but lets not pretend it is all.

Now, I have known two women who, as they moved into adulthood and chose to wear a hijab (not a burka), were not forced into it at all. In fact, one of the two had a sister who did not wear one, so it was clearly her choice. I have known other women for whom it was no issue.

BUT, let's not pretend that all women in any country are free to choose for themselves which way to go.

The issue is therefore a complex one - Which is more oppressive - members of family and community forcing a woman to wear a burka, or a government forcing them not to? You also have to consider where to draw the line. A loose head scarf is one thing, a hijab another and a burka something else.

ShumaGorath wrote:The Bhurka is just a form of clothing, and has nothing to do with the institutionalized secondary role of women in islam. That is just as prevalent in christian religions, and for two thousand years all we needed was the book and the will to make women secondary citizens. The burkha is an adherence to a form of "social modesty" which is not in and of itself a concept that reduces rights. It's a symptom of what is a series of documents that are not particularly gender equal. Banning the burkha does nothing to improve the plight of women in muslim predominant countries, nor does it do anything at all for them in france.

It really does seem you say things purely to be objectionable.

The burka is a visible sign of oppression of women, and women do get punished for choosing not to wear one. It is not the entirety of Islamic culture's oppression of women, but it is part of it, just like forcing Jews to wear Stars of David was part of the oppression of Jews.

dogma wrote:That said, the veil can be used to oppress in the same way that any required article of clothing can be used to oppress. However, if the issue is the oppression of Muslim women by Muslim men there are are far better ways to deal with it than banning the veil.

Indeed, and I hope that other areas of oppression are also tackled. For example, it is a widespread practice in some Muslim dominated regions to deny education to women, and it has happened on a limited scale in Western countries, with individual families and small communities deliberately conspiring to prevent girls being well educated. It seems obvious that well educated women are more likely to question their secondary role. This is one of the reasons I am fearful of the rise of Muslim girl-only schools in parts of London. Thankfully they fall under the auspices of OFSTED, so they have standards to maintain - one of the few things OFSTED is good for.

Tyyr wrote:Sorry, but to start infringing on someone's rights I need a better legal foundation for that than, "I just don't like it."

There is no part of this for me that is about disliking women wearing burkas or hijabs because of its appearance.

I dislike any practice that disrciminates against one section of society unfairly. I consider the burka to be a part of this, thus, I dislike it, just like I would not ask Jews to wear a Star of David or to ask Black and White children to attend different schools.

I am a tolerant person. My tolerance does not extend to accepting intolerance.

Fifty wrote:

Let me ask you this - when a woman chooses not to wear a burka, who is it that deals with it?

In countries under Muslim majority rule where Sharia Law or similar is in force, it is men. Men in positions of authority, mandated by the government and religious authorities, which are often the same thing. These same governments and religious authorities are dominated by men. Men punish women for not wearing a Burka

....*snip*.....

I am a tolerant person. My tolerance does not extend to accepting intolerance.

What an excellent, well thought out and articulated post. I completely and utterly agree.

dogma wrote:Disconnected comments. Democracy is prone to tyranny of the majority. Full stop. Government by the ignorant should be inherently bothersome.

This is certainly true. Democracy has many flaws, and this is but one of them - a very serious one.

As for the robbers in Glasgow - banning people wearing veils into the store might not stop those men from being criminals, but they would find it harder to be successul at robbing that jewellers. The same two men would not have been allowed entry if wearing balaclavas, and yet coming in in a veil is acceptable? There is no need to prevent them wearing a veil, but it is reasonable to ask them to show their face before restoring the veil to its normal position.

filbert wrote:

Fifty wrote:

Let me ask you this - when a woman chooses not to wear a burka, who is it that deals with it?

In countries under Muslim majority rule where Sharia Law or similar is in force, it is men. Men in positions of authority, mandated by the government and religious authorities, which are often the same thing. These same governments and religious authorities are dominated by men. Men punish women for not wearing a Burka

....*snip*.....

I am a tolerant person. My tolerance does not extend to accepting intolerance.

What an excellent, well thought out and articulated post. I completely and utterly agree.

Cheers to fifty i think they said it all

My word, when I engage in debates here I normally get told off for being offensive. Maybe I am learning?

Or maybe it is that I regard this as a genuinely complex issue that requires careful thought, whereas the creationism-evolution debate I normally engage in seems to obviously cut-and-dried to me that I can't ever bring myself to hide my... "strong" feelings on the matter

Thank you, I am glad I managed to express myself well.

Fifty wrote:

Tyyr wrote:Sorry, but to start infringing on someone's rights I need a better legal foundation for that than, "I just don't like it."

There is no part of this for me that is about disliking women wearing burkas or hijabs because of its appearance.

I dislike any practice that disrciminates against one section of society unfairly. I consider the burka to be a part of this, thus, I dislike it, just like I would not ask Jews to wear a Star of David or to ask Black and White children to attend different schools.

I am a tolerant person. My tolerance does not extend to accepting intolerance.

I never said appearance. It was a general "I don't like it," you supply the reason. The problem is that you can't prove that every woman wearing a burkha is oppressed or being discriminated against. You're assuming she is or that enough women are somewhere to make it worthwhile to discriminate against those women who might choose to wear it willingly.

Besides, if a household really is hardcore enough to beat a woman for not wearing her burkha what do you think is going to happen if you suddenly outlaw burkhas? Will their husbands or families who are already willing to viciously beat their own flesh and blood just throw up their hands in defeat or will the women's situation get even worse? If they don't wear their burkhas they get beaten by their family but if they do they get arrested by the police, and then likely beaten by their families anyways.

In no way will a law like this foster any kind betterment of these women's plights. If anything the rift it makes between mainstream society and the muslim minority will only make things worse. You don't solve intolerance or social ills by just outlawing them. If that worked the US would have been just fine and dandy race relations wise in the 1960's. The only way to get through is to educate, inform, and build some bridges between the cultures over time.

If you wanna claim sympathy and caring for the women then supporting a law that only puts out the group who willingly wears them and worsens the situation of those forced tow wear them all while mucking up relations with their entire religious group is probably a bad place to start. I'm all for women's rights and bettering their situations but outlawing burkhas would just attacking a symptom rather than a root cause of a problem. Which means you do nothing to fix the real problem, you just feel better because you can pretend you have while the real problem gets worse.

To reiterate, so long as the women are willing to show their faces for identification I can't see any reason to outlaw the style of dress.

It really does seem you say things purely to be objectionable.

It could just be that I don't bother sugar coating or dumbing down my posts for idiots, meaning that when an opinion is nuanced it comes across purely as one designed to be confrontational for arguments sake. I do not agree with frances position for the reasons I stated in my first post, the security reasons are invalid and the counter-oppression reasoning is invalid. There are no oppressed muslim women in France, the only place where the law will take effect. Thus it does nothing to counteract it. Thus it is an intolerant law which is such purely for the sake of aesthetics.

The burka is a visible sign of oppression of women, and women do get punished for choosing not to wear one. It is not the entirety of Islamic culture's oppression of women, but it is part of it, just like forcing Jews to wear Stars of David was part of the oppression of Jews.

Women get punished for choosing not to wear one in Saudi Arabia. Not france. Not even Iran. Not Indonesia, not Iraq, not northern China. It's an oppressive item of clothing in the same way dresses are in northern and central africa, where women are punished for wearing pants. The Bhurkha is just a piece of clothing, it takes a societal structure to make its absence punishable, something that FRANCE doesn't have.

I dislike any practice that disrciminates against one section of society unfairly. I consider the burka to be a part of this, thus, I dislike it, just like I would not ask Jews to wear a Star of David or to ask Black and White children to attend different schools.

So you are intolerant of the non existent intolerant people in france forcing women to wear burkhas, but you are totally tolerant of the quite real intolerant law prohibiting women to wear them when in many cases it's considered by the women themselves to be a large part of their personal and religious identities? That doesn't seem the least bit counter intuitive to you?

Where do I assume that it is best to ban the burka? Where have I said it should be done? I have specifically said I think it may be a good idea, but my opinion alone is not enough to justify it. Have you even read my posts? I said it is a complex situation that needs careful consideration and thorough analysis...

Empchild wrote:AHHHH now dogma by adding tyranny into a sentence we are shooting for a whole different ball game here, and yes I never know why but I take shuma off every now and then. Then he rambles something odd or so offbeat that I put him on.. I think he will stay on ignored from now on.

Color me shocked, the guy that can't quote a dictionary right in some wild goose chase argumentative attempt at proving that tyranny of the majority can't exist without a tyrannical leader has me on ignore for being confrontational. Boy howdy, doesn't that beat all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fifty wrote:Where do I assume that it is best to ban the burka? Where have I said it should be done? I have specifically said I think it may be a good idea, but my opinion alone is not enough to justify it. Have you even read my posts? I said it is a complex situation that needs careful consideration and thorough analysis...

But you are stating two similar events which are unrelated. While it is quite oppressive that women are forced to wear such items in Saudi Arabia, that does not mean that alternately it is then not oppressive to ban their use in an western culture. By the tone of your post you were setting up a choice, when both are logically oppressive and therefore poor choices.

The second portion of my quote from your post is what I am primarily debating against. While it may seem oppressive in one region, it is not in france. It is not a requirement of french muslim women to wear Bhurkhas now, nor has it ever been. The comparison to the star of david is both misleading and somewhat insulting to any that have dealt with actual secular oppression, especially when you consider that in both of these cases a secular government is doing something to control the dress of a minority religion which that same government and peoples often blames for economic and security related hardship.

Fifty wrote:
Let me ask you this - when a woman chooses not to wear a burka, who is it that deals with it?

In countries under Muslim majority rule where Sharia Law or similar is in force, it is men. Men in positions of authority, mandated by the government and religious authorities, which are often the same thing. These same governments and religious authorities are dominated by men. Men punish women for not wearing a Burka.

But that doesn't make the burqa inherently oppressive. It makes the systems which use it as a means of control inherently oppressive. The burqa is just an article of clothing, nothing more.

Fifty wrote:
BUT, let's not pretend that all women in any country are free to choose for themselves which way to go.

Where did I indicate that all women in any country are ever free to choose for themselves? I imagine there are plenty of non-Muslim women in both the United States, and England who lack free choice. I imagine there are plenty of Muslim, and non-Muslim men as well. The issue is not the burqa, the issue is the cultural stigma that comes with defying perceived social norms.

Fifty wrote:
The issue is therefore a complex one - Which is more oppressive - members of family and community forcing a woman to wear a burka, or a government forcing them not to? You also have to consider where to draw the line. A loose head scarf is one thing, a hijab another and a burka something else.

If you ban the wearing of such clothing in public, do you believe that it will reduce violence in private? It isn't as though the women in question can simply leave the abusive situation, this has been shown time and again in the course of generic domestic violence cases.

ShumaGorath wrote:

It really does seem you say things purely to be objectionable.

It could just be that I don't bother sugar coating or dumbing down my posts for idiots, meaning that when an opinion is nuanced it comes across purely as one designed to be confrontational for arguments sake. I do not agree with frances position for the reasons I stated in my first post, the security reasons are invalid and the counter-oppression reasoning is invalid. There are no oppressed muslim women in France, the only place where the law will take effect. Thus it does nothing to counteract it. Thus it is an intolerant law which is such purely for the sake of aesthetics.

You see how calling people idiots for disagreeing with you could be taken badly, right?

Not a single Muslim woman in France is oppressed by her family? Now, that seems like quite a strong statement to make. Have you checked? With all of them? And made sure they are not being intimidated into just saying that? Really? Did it take long?

The burka is a visible sign of oppression of women, and women do get punished for choosing not to wear one. It is not the entirety of Islamic culture's oppression of women, but it is part of it, just like forcing Jews to wear Stars of David was part of the oppression of Jews.

Women get punished for choosing not to wear one in Saudi Arabia. Not france. Not even Iran. Not Indonesia, not Iraq, not northern China. It's an oppressive item of clothing in the same way dresses are in northern and central africa, where women are punished for wearing pants. The Bhurkha is just a piece of clothing, it takes a societal structure to make its absence punishable, something that FRANCE doesn't have.

Women do get punished in Iran by the authorities for not wearing a burka. Also in other countries. No, not all countries do it via the authorities, but I never said they did. Finding exceptions to a trend does not disprove the trend.

Now, I would also be against women being punished for wearing trousers, so I don't see how that is a useful argument. "Women in Africa get beaten for wearing trousers, so it is okay for women in Saudi Arabia and Iran to get beaten for not wearing hijabs or burkas." Does that really sound right to you?

Now, as to France, clearly women are not punished by the authorities when they wear a burka in France. But again, unless you want to detail here your extensive studies in France and other Western countries, how will you demonstrate that no woman in France is punished by her family or community for it?

I dislike any practice that disrciminates against one section of society unfairly. I consider the burka to be a part of this, thus, I dislike it, just like I would not ask Jews to wear a Star of David or to ask Black and White children to attend different schools.

So you are intolerant of the non existent intolerant people in france forcing women to wear burkhas, but you are totally tolerant of the quite real intolerant law prohibiting women to wear them when in many cases it's considered by the women themselves to be a large part of their personal and religious identities? That doesn't seem the least bit counter intuitive to you?

Again, I have to ask if you have read my posts at all? I clearly state that there is a conflict between the need to protect women from having to wear a burka if they don't want to, and the injustice of preventing them from wearing one if they do want to.

You seem to be thinking this is a clear cut issue and that your way is right. Most people are accepting that it is a tricky situation, in which some women need to have their right to NOT wear a burka protected and others need their right TO wear one protected.

Modquisition on.
This thread is getting flamy with some posts being seriously trolling towards other posters. Lets all remember Dakka Rule #1 or this thread will be closed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Its not particularly different. The real issue is the degree to which ignorance influences the process of governance. I was just defending myself from being accused of holding dictatorial beliefs.

Point taken Doggie.

Can we at least agree that it is wrong to oppress women?

Can we agree that one method by which some women in some places are oppressed is forcing them to wear a burka? Even if it is just a symptom, not a significant aspect of the problem?

Can we agree that if any woman does not want to wear a burka, she should not have to?

I could support a country, community, culture, family or religion in its decision to make all women wear burkas if men had to do the same, but that is not the case.

The difficult question then becomes, not "should women be forced/prevented from wearing burkas?" but a far more important question of "how can we best protect women from oppression?" and "Is preventing the wearing of burkas useful in this desire?"

Some would say "yes", others would say "no", others would say "depends".

mattyrm wrote:I hear what your saying Krazy, as always, you make a sensible comment, but i cannot for the life of me think of any other religion that treats one portion of their society with as much scorn as Islam does women.

I think many religions are innately misogynistic, being as they were founded many many years ago, but i dont think any treat them as badly.

The Taliban went back to "real" Islam, and as a result women were banned from reading, writing, or leaving the house not dressed like a ninja.

Hamid Karzai has also just passed a law basically making it legal to rape your wife. Something that had me utterly aghast, as i did two tours on the premise we were "helping"

I didnt sign up to help legitamize rape. I have no taste for almost all of their "tradition"

Karzai has no legitimacy and IMO it was a mistake to accept his "re-election"

Most societies are misogynistic -- Islam is worse than the West though our hands aren't clean either. It was only in 1994 that rape within marriage was made illegal in the UK.

I just don't think banning a particular aspect of behaviour is the best way to approach the issue. It takes two or three generations to change a society. Modern Islamic women in the UK are pretty well integrated and westernised compared to their parents. That's why all the trouble with honour killings and so on.

You can't force people to be free by making it illegal not to be free.

You see how calling people idiots for disagreeing with you could be taken badly, right?

Not when they have me on ignore!

Not a single Muslim woman in France is oppressed by her family? Now, that seems like quite a strong statement to make. Have you checked? With all of them? And made sure they are not being intimidated into just saying that? Really? Did it take long?

Oh, there most certainly is somewhere, but thats an issue for frances social services workers, and is honestly pretty irrelevant to the idea of a ban on burkhas in public places.

Now, I would also be against women being punished for wearing trousers, so I don't see how that is a useful argument. "Women in Africa get beaten for wearing trousers, so it is okay for women in Saudi Arabia and Iran to get beaten for not wearing hijabs or burkas." Does that really sound right to you?

No, but it also seems entirely irrelevant to the conversation about such attire in France. Why are you drawing parallels to unequal and unrelated situations? It appears that you are attempting to imply that because an article of clothing is oppressive in one place it is in western nations that do not have laws or practices governing them as well. How is the burkha different than trousers here?

Now, as to France, clearly women are not punished by the authorities when they wear a burka in France. But again, unless you want to detail here your extensive studies in France and other Western countries, how will you demonstrate that no woman in France is punished by her family or community for it?

I can't. I also can't prove that no one punishes their children for coming out of the closet, getting mohawks, getting tattoos, or doing much anything else. What you are comparing the burkha to at this point is household religious traditions and equating them to oppression. Certainly the argument has a point, often times muslim households do enforce religious laws and customs, but by that same token are you going to outlaw the little jewish cap? Or the Bindi perhaps? What about green hair? Piercings? I'm all for standardizing the care of children in households, but why plant your flag specifically in the Burkha when there are literally thousands of similar situations which go commonly accepted?

You seem to be thinking this is a clear cut issue and that your way is right. Most people are accepting that it is a tricky situation, in which some women need to have their right to NOT wear a burka protected and others need their right TO wear one protected.

No, I just think that you are hiding a rather simple opinion in a "complicated and nuanced" form. Distilling your posts you are essentially saying that "Burkhas are a sign of oppression in foreign countries, but not in france, but that it's a difficult consideration because french muslim families may still be forcing their women or children to wear them". This is not a nuanced or difficult opinion to understand, and while it's somewhat legitimate it's a far cry from being enough so to base an intolerant law on. This is entirely under the purview of french social services, banning the public wearing of burkhas does nothing to prevent private familial religious traditions from effecting the lives of french muslim women.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fifty wrote:Can we at least agree that it is wrong to oppress women?

Can we agree that one method by which some women in some places are oppressed is forcing them to wear a burka? Even if it is just a symptom, not a significant aspect of the problem?

Can we agree that if any woman does not want to wear a burka, she should not have to?

I could support a country, community, culture, family or religion in its decision to make all women wear burkas if men had to do the same, but that is not the case.

The difficult question then becomes, not "should women be forced/prevented from wearing burkas?" but a far more important question of "how can we best protect women from oppression?" and "Is preventing the wearing of burkas useful in this desire?"

Some would say "yes", others would say "no", others would say "depends".

This post is actually well balanced and respecting of both sides of the issue, without stating directly or indirectly support for one side or another, like in previous posts. I will agree here, though agreeing that "differen't sides exist" in a somewhat contentious debate isn't a particularly groundbreaking thing to do.

Most societies are misogynistic -- Islam is worse than the West though our hands aren't clean either. It was only in 1994 that rape within marriage was made illegal in the UK.

Be careful when equating a religion to a region of the world and saying one is worse than the other. It's not a particularly apt comparison. Islamic states have historically been no worse than religiously governed western states, we simply live within an irreligious secularized hemisphere at this point and they do not. An example of secularization vs oppressive religious doctrination is a bit more valid a comparison.