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.

nkelsch wrote:


Some would say they are wearing the head coverings to honor his/her religion, and the religion calls them to it as well and are not 'the man is forcing me'. Face coverings have roots in cultures who used them for very real practical purposes like maintaining moisture and protecting your face from damage to wind, sand and sun as well. Hell, in the winter, 90% of the people on the metro and in DC, our nations capital are bundled up way more than most islamic head coverings. There are hundreds of people a day walking past the white house with thier entire face covered during the winter and the world hasn't ended and no one is at risk. As long as 'the government' isn't forcing people to wear/notwear specific things, then I don't have a place telling people what they do. What you wear and what you do to your body is freedom of speech. Policing speech to determine why one form of expression of covering is 'bad' and another is 'choice' is a scary place to be and usually what is meant to shield people becomes a weapon used by the intolerant and bigoted to harm people.

The difference is, in the case of a Washington winter, there is a compelling and immediate reason to cover your face; ie to avoid frostbite or that annoying 'burn' you get on your face when icy wind blows in it for a while. There is no compelling or immediate reason to wear a parka or a balaclava in the middle of a Washington summer, so you won't see anybody doing it. In contrast, people wearing burkas aren't doing it because of the weather, and in fact, may be doing it in spite of the weather (I hear it gets kinda warm in Australia, sometimes).

Is there a security reason for wanting people to not wear clothing that completely hides their identity? Yeah, you could make the argument. We've all heard of people robbing banks or stores wearing balaclavas and motorcycle helmets, so some restrictions on those make sense. I don't recall hearing about a rash of burglaries carried out by burka or niquab-clad muslim women, though, so I'm less inclined to see the sense in a security-related argument for restricting or banning them.

squidhills wrote:
In contrast, people wearing burkas aren't doing it because of the weather, and in fact, may be doing it in spite of the weather (I hear it gets kinda warm in Australia, sometimes).

Friend of mine spent a couple months in Morocco, out among the Bedouin tribes and had some very interesting things to report.... One of which was, the fashion of the Bedouins (in particular) act as an outstanding A/C system. He actually swapped his clothing for theres for a couple days, and he tells me that when he was first getting ready to put the stuff on, he was worried about overheating. But, all the layers and fabrics that they wear, especially the Bedouin style turban creates such a buffer between the body and the sun that you actually feel rather cool (temperature, not like Paul Newman). So while I can't comment on the burka (as I've never directly known anyone who wore one), I will say that the people who inhabit the hottest deserts know how to dress for their weather, and this may also be the case with feminine attire over there (of course, it wouldn't surprise me at all if women's clothing did nothing for the heat/temp. of the wearer as men's clothing does)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Friend of mine spent a couple months in Morocco, out among the Bedouin tribes and had some very interesting things to report.... One of which was, the fashion of the Bedouins (in particular) act as an outstanding A/C system. He actually swapped his clothing for theres for a couple days, and he tells me that when he was first getting ready to put the stuff on, he was worried about overheating. But, all the layers and fabrics that they wear, especially the Bedouin style turban creates such a buffer between the body and the sun that you actually feel rather cool (temperature, not like Paul Newman). So while I can't comment on the burka (as I've never directly known anyone who wore one), I will say that the people who inhabit the hottest deserts know how to dress for their weather, and this may also be the case with feminine attire over there (of course, it wouldn't surprise me at all if women's clothing did nothing for the heat/temp. of the wearer as men's clothing does)

But does it protect against Australian super-spiders? What about Drop Bears?

squidhills wrote:

But does it protect against Australian super-spiders? What about Drop Bears?

I would have to go with Yes to the first one, and No to the second.


To be fair, I think the "minimum" safety gear for Drop Bears is an M-1 Abrams tank

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Again, dealing with children's issues, if they are under 18, is a bit problematic due to them generally not having the same level of rights as the parents. I don't think that I'm advocating any sort of draconian dress code here, just that people have Human Rights, and that I believe that the burka violates those rights.

A government forcing people to wear one... Yes...
People choosing to wear one or having the freedom to wear one: No.
Government forcing what people cannot wear in the name of 'assimilation' or fake security threats: No

Sorry, Free Speech is free speech. As long as the government is not forcing it upon them, then at some point people need to have the freedom to practice their religion as they choose. (as long as your country has freedom of religion) Free speech is much more important human right to me than forced assimilation or religious oppression based on bigotry and intolerance.

The dots being connected basically will deem any 'cultural wear' which has religious significance will be deemed as a human rights violation as God's very existence to many humans is oppressive and believing in God makes your human rights violated. All I see is white people wanting to force their culture and ideals as the world-wide default. I have seen it when friends were unfairly targeted and discriminated due to choosing to wear Dashikis and not forcibly culturally assimilate to the norm of 89$ JoS A banks suits. One of the saddest things ever was to see how the west basically mutilated and steamrolled much of china and japan's culture with western influences to the point where people don't even feel like they can wear traditional garb at their own weddings out of fear of offending relatives from the west.

I don't want any government telling people what they should or should not wear in the bigoted name of 'cultural assimilation' which is code for 'forcing a euro-centric culture upon everyone'

So why isn't the religious view points taken out of this? Wasn't the point to ban them at government places as they covered the face, like how some places do not allow closed helmets.

They should be allowed to wear them whenever cause that's what they want, but some areas you just need to forget religion for a moment and realise at times safety can be more important than some belief system.

 n0t_u wrote:
So why isn't the religious view points taken out of this? Wasn't the point to ban them at government places as they covered the face, like how some places do not allow closed helmets.

They should be allowed to wear them whenever cause that's what they want, but some areas you just need to forget religion for a moment and realise at times safety can be more important than some belief system.

Because the safety argument is a blatant and transparent false premise which is being used to force bigoted and oppressive laws on their citizens. And many people do not think giving up free speech in the name of 'security' is a good trade.

nkelsch wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
So why isn't the religious view points taken out of this? Wasn't the point to ban them at government places as they covered the face, like how some places do not allow closed helmets.

They should be allowed to wear them whenever cause that's what they want, but some areas you just need to forget religion for a moment and realise at times safety can be more important than some belief system.

Because the safety argument is a blatant and transparent false premise which is being used to force bigoted and oppressive laws on their citizens. And many people do not think giving up free speech in the name of 'security' is a good trade.

As is religion in most cases sadly. But, I'm talking about higher security areas mostly not the local shops or something. Places where identification is extremely important should supersede beliefs or at least allow a good system to cover it.

 n0t_u wrote:
But, I'm talking about higher security areas mostly not the local shops or something. Places where identification is extremely important should supersede beliefs or at least allow a good system to cover it.

While I agree that security reasons are perfectly valid to prevent full face covers in public spaces, in this particular instance people would have already gone through one or several security checkpoints requiring visual ID and documentation to be allowed to reach the galleries.

If you've already been properly identified, the fact that you can cover your face afterwards doesn't pose any security risk whatsoever.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
On the one hand... a covered face poses a pretty significant security risk... On the other, even FRANCE handled the issue better (or, they at least had tried to... not sure if that law passed)

What the hell? We said you have no right to go around with your face covered in the street except for a list of reasonable exceptions like when you are riding a bike and wear a helmet. I am not sure how this is better or worse than what Australia did.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
-Mom making a child wear religious attire generally speaking, is OK, because children generally do not have the same kind of "rights" as adults do.

I am not sure that is okay, really.

 insaniak wrote:
For you going to the Middle East, it's not a big deal to wear a little more clothing if your normal apparel is a bit too shocking for the locals.
For someone from the Middle East coming to the West, it's a much bigger ask to expect them to just shuck their clothing because everyone else is doing it.

I have been in the middle-east, Iran more specifically, twice, with my family, and this does not represent at all my experiences there. Basically, it was a whole lot more like my mother had to wear a little more clothing because the government enforced that rule while most of the local women were actually trying very hard to push the limits of how few clothing was still acceptable, and almost no-one would have been shocked if my mom wore less because, uh, have you ever seen pictures of Iran before the revolution? Or what people wear as soon as they are in a private place?
My Iranian friends who came to France had not to be asked to wear less, by the way.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The passage if youre curious:

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (mist ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! Turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.”

When quoting the Quran, please please please do provide specific references, i.e. the number (and, if you want to, name) of the Surah, and the number of the verse. Actually, if you want to do even better, also add a link to this: http://quranexplorer.com/quran/ , so that people can check out and compare 5 different English translations, the original Arabic text if they can read it, and a translation in their native language if they are not native English speakers. Then only people will be able to really make up their own minds. Because basing yourself on just one translation can be damn misleading, while looking at different translations to check what they have in common allow you to way better discern what is clear in the text and what is an interpretation/stylistic effect of the translator.
IIRC, the “slave that the right hand possess” are those that were enslaved during jihad. I will let you think on this part of the verse and what it implies .

 insaniak wrote:
Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy inherent in 'saving' women from being told what they can and can't wear by implementing legislation telling them what they can and can't wear?

Frankly I'm not interested the least in preserving a culture I think is intrinsically more barbaric than modern secular society, but I can point to solvency and harms reduction empirically, where you can only chant the multicultural mantra.

 Bullockist wrote:
I still have no idea why someones face being hidden in public is worrisome

Do you not know what a burka is after all this discussion? It hides everything, not just the face: heads, torso, legs, ect.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
I still have no idea why someones face being hidden in public is worrisome

Do you not know what a burka is after all this discussion? It hides everything, not just the face: heads, torso, legs, ect.

In theory, it could be used to hide weapons, which a criminal could use to commit crimes. In reality, we haven't seen a rash of crimes committed by Muslim women concealing UZIs under their burkas, so I'm not sure there is a pressing need to legislate restrictions on them.

Not saying I approve of them (I take the stance that it is a dehumanizing garment that reduces a woman to a faceless, shapless thing) but I just don't see a compelling security reason to pass laws against them.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
On the one hand... a covered face poses a pretty significant security risk... On the other, even FRANCE handled the issue better (or, they at least had tried to... not sure if that law passed)

What the hell? We said you have no right to go around with your face covered in the street except for a list of reasonable exceptions like when you are riding a bike and wear a helmet. I am not sure how this is better or worse than what Australia did.

France has a pretty hardcore philosophy on separation of church and state, or more broadly church and public ( a lot like Mexico actually). I think it stems from the Revolution, when the Church actively supported the monarchy but thats purely IIRC.

It is a philosphy that I as a follower of the Great Wienie subscribe to.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
-Mom making a child wear religious attire generally speaking, is OK, because children generally do not have the same kind of "rights" as adults do.

I am not sure that is okay, really.

As I said, here in the US there is a sort of view that, right or wrong, basically children have some rights, but not really that many. I mean, if someone's religion calls for the wearing of nipple rings and gimp suits, I think we could all agree that 6 year old Timmy shouldn't be getting his nipples pierced, nor should he be wearing a gimp suit. Something as "simple" as a yarmulke is OK, especially since it is a Jewish garment, and not only is Judaism a religion, it is in many ways its own ethnicity. (As in, I've known several people who identify as being Jewish, but do not practice or follow the Jewish religion beyond wearing a yarmulke)

Good.

Don't want to be construed as a security threat - don't dress like a security threat. It's no different than if I was to walk around wearing one of these:





Nothing in the Koran requires women to cover their faces.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kali wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy inherent in 'saving' women from being told what they can and can't wear by implementing legislation telling them what they can and can't wear?

Frankly I'm not interested the least in preserving a culture I think is intrinsically more barbaric than modern secular society, but I can point to solvency and harms reduction empirically, where you can only chant the multicultural mantra.

And...thank you.

FInally someone gets it. Multiculturalism for the sake of multiculturalism is absurd. How much multiculturalism do you see in Islamic countries? ZERO. You're either a Muslim, or you're their subjects. END OF STORY. Not a Muslim? SHUT THE feth UP AND PAY THE TAX. If you're lucky, they'll let you live.

squidhills wrote:

Not saying I approve of them (I take the stance that it is a dehumanizing garment that reduces a woman to a faceless, shapless thing) but I just don't see a compelling security reason to pass laws against them.

What about people who feel being classified by only your 'looks' is dehumanizing and removing physical looks from the equation allows someone to be seen for what is inside and who they are and what they do and not what they look like?

The way a fat girl is universally dismissed in today's society simply due to her looks and the way people act towards those who are overweight or unattractive is often more 'dehumanizing' than face coverings. Many women are forced to 'dehumanize' themselves every day in multiple aspects of society in order to be taken seriously or survive. Female writers use initials to cloak their gender on research and writing to be taken seriously based upon their content. Female gamers use voice alterations to cloak they are women in order to avoid harassment. There are lots of examples where hiding surface aspects of yourself is one of the only ways to break through the superficial levels of society. So forcing people to be constantly quantified and marginalized by their external shell because you 'feel it is better' isn't necessarily universally right or everyone else shares the same opinion. Hence freedom for people do do what they want. If someone thinks their tradition of Hijab empowers them by hiding their outer beauty to force interacting with their inner beauty... that is their choice and really none of anyone else's business to lecture them on how they need to be rescued from themselves or their culture in favor of a western euro-centric culture which has many terrible and just as oppressive customs. I can have opinions on it, just like you, but I am not going to force my opinions on them or try to stack society to make those who don't follow my world view to be marginalized for no reason.

The problem is when someone basically makes up an arbitrary standard of expression, speech or existence then forces it on everyone with the explanation of "I am right, this is fair now..."

At some point, you have to let people have some freedom to choose on their own. As long as the government isn't forcing people to wear/notwear what they want then it is ok.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
FInally someone gets it. Multiculturalism for the sake of multiculturalism is absurd. How much multiculturalism do you see in Islamic countries? ZERO. You're either a Muslim, or you're their subjects. END OF STORY. Not a Muslim? SHUT THE feth UP AND PAY THE TAX. If you're lucky, they'll let you live.

So... because some other countries are intolerant, we all should be?

nkelsch wrote:
What about people who feel being classified by only your 'looks' is dehumanizing and removing physical looks from the equation allows someone to be seen for what is inside and who they are and what they do and not what they look like?

They do not wear burka. Only hardline muslims do.

nkelsch wrote:
Many women are forced to 'dehumanize' themselves every day in multiple aspects of society in order to be taken seriously or survive. Female writers use initials to cloak their gender on research and writing to be taken seriously based upon their content. Female gamers use voice alterations to cloak they are women in order to avoid harassment.

How would wearing a garb that marks you as female help here? It would not.

nkelsch wrote:
If someone thinks their tradition of Hijab empowers them by hiding their outer beauty to force interacting with their inner beauty...

There is no “inner beauty”, this is nonsense.

nkelsch wrote:
in favor of a western euro-centric culture which has many terrible and just as oppressive customs.

Certainly had, but worked and is still currently working on fixing them.

nkelsch wrote:

squidhills wrote:

Not saying I approve of them (I take the stance that it is a dehumanizing garment that reduces a woman to a faceless, shapless thing) but I just don't see a compelling security reason to pass laws against them.

What about people who feel being classified by only your 'looks' is dehumanizing and removing physical looks from the equation allows someone to be seen for what is inside and who they are and what they do and not what they look like?

Treating someone poorly/judging them by their looks is bad. Reducing them to the status of a mute non-person because they have a vagina is objectively worse.

 insaniak wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
FInally someone gets it. Multiculturalism for the sake of multiculturalism is absurd. How much multiculturalism do you see in Islamic countries? ZERO. You're either a Muslim, or you're their subjects. END OF STORY. Not a Muslim? SHUT THE feth UP AND PAY THE TAX. If you're lucky, they'll let you live.

So... because some other countries are intolerant, we all should be?

Not to mention the dimmah and the jizya have been gone from most muslim countries' legislations since the 1850s.

It's ironic that, after a decade and half of horror stories about dhimmies and dhimmitude, the ISIS reinstated the dimmah for non-muslim population. Self-accoplished prophecy much?

 insaniak wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
FInally someone gets it. Multiculturalism for the sake of multiculturalism is absurd. How much multiculturalism do you see in Islamic countries? ZERO. You're either a Muslim, or you're their subjects. END OF STORY. Not a Muslim? SHUT THE feth UP AND PAY THE TAX. If you're lucky, they'll let you live.

So... because some other countries are intolerant, we all should be?

I am shamelessly intolerant of gross and rampant intolerance that manifests in extortion, mutilation, and murder. Yes.

 insaniak wrote:
So... because some other countries are intolerant, we all should be?

Well it's simply a matter of deciding that unacceptable conduct is unacceptable conduct regardless the historical or cultural reasons behind it. I don't care particularly about believing, it's the acting - the behavior - that matters. Fact is that if you allow women to wear the burka, their relatives and husbands will force them to wear it. Additionally, the merit of the practice is nil, and it reinforces ghettoization and stems assimilation. We should all interact with each other as part of the same fundamental community - secular civic society - before rallying behind these secondary and tertiary identities which divide us and introduce unhealthy treatment of fellow men.

 Kali wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy inherent in 'saving' women from being told what they can and can't wear by implementing legislation telling them what they can and can't wear?

Frankly I'm not interested the least in preserving a culture I think is intrinsically more barbaric than modern secular society, but I can point to solvency and harms reduction empirically, where you can only chant the multicultural mantra.

You do realise you are damning a whole culture based on a small minority?

I'm not championing a multiucultural mantra, just that clothes is clothes and banning clothes is stupid and let me say it victorian. In lands where there is freedom we want to stop people wearing clothes because they pose a security risk, what friggin security risk? A burka does not decrease security in the slightest as phantom viper pointed out, and as nklesch (or however you spell it) pointed out it is just an excuse for segregating people based on feelings of people being uncomfortable. If someone wants to wear a burka I put it in the same category as ear plugs, neck tattoos and other items of apparel/decoration that i consider stupid - but if they want to wear it that's up to them.

In this current climate of fear - seriously when was the last time you went 2 days without hearing about terrorism in the media- to many stupid laws are passed in the name of security, and this was going to be one of them. If you want to be supportive of laws like this , enjoy the fear. I for one don't think that fear is a healthy way for a society to live and honestly fearing terrorism is illogical and counter productive.

 Bullockist wrote:
You do realise you are damning a whole culture based on a small minority?

I'm damning the whole culture on the basis that it promotes certain types of undesirable behaviors (such as the subjugation of women) and also discourages assimilation. People may believe what they wish, (for now) I suppose, but letting them behave as they wish is going a step too far.

I'm not championing a multiucultural mantra, just that clothes is clothes and banning clothes is stupid and let me say it victorian. In lands where there is freedom we want to stop people wearing clothes because they pose a security risk, what friggin security risk?

Again, I don't consider the "security threat" posed by the burka to be significant. I also don't consider the "freedom to wear the burka" significant. I do consider both the abuse it protects and ghettoizing social effects it causes to be significant. The secular modern culture of Western and (most) Northeast Asian countries is objectively (or as close as you'll get to it, anyways) superior to cultures informed by tradition and religion. I won't even go so far as to demand the extermination of these other cultures, I just ask that we don't tolerate their flagrant barbarism and disrespect for what most of us understand to be basic human rights in our own societies.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
FInally someone gets it. Multiculturalism for the sake of multiculturalism is absurd. How much multiculturalism do you see in Islamic countries? ZERO. You're either a Muslim, or you're their subjects. END OF STORY. Not a Muslim? SHUT THE feth UP AND PAY THE TAX. If you're lucky, they'll let you live.

So... because some other countries are intolerant, we all should be?

I am shamelessly intolerant of gross and rampant intolerance that manifests in extortion, mutilation, and murder. Yes.

I am glad western civilization doesn't have those issues... oh wait.

Boils down to 'security' and 'protecting women' are both indefensible positions based off raw ignorance or are being used to cloak an ulterior-motive which is basically 'intolerance of non-assimilation of culture'. Basically they want one society, one culture to be all that is allowed and everyone needs to be forcibly assimilated. These attitudes are based in a history of racism, hate and violence.

Intolerance and demonizing of cultural aspects you don't like and legislation to hassle, isolate and then criminalize other cultures didn't end well last time Europe tried to implement such policies.

Freedom... as long as you live your life the way I do and by my rules. Right? Maybe people can just be allowed to have actual freedom and do what they want? Promote change via education and freedom not oppressive and pointlessly forced assimilation motivated by hate and violence through oppressive legislation.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kali wrote:
I won't even go so far as to demand the extermination of these other cultures, I just ask that we don't tolerate their flagrant barbarism and disrespect for what most of us understand to be basic human rights in our own societies.

Right... Exterminating these cultures is phase two in your final solution. First we just need to get laws on the books to begin to document them via criminal records and restrict their freedom in society by criminalizing their beliefs. Once you criminalize them and prove all of those people are criminals, THEN you can demand the extermination of the culture and in turn the people who are part of it.

It is hard to believe that a culture that believes women should be so covered up can also believe that women should be free, equal members of society.

 Manchu wrote:
It is hard to believe that a culture that believes women should be so covered up can also believe that women should be free, equal members of society.

But Our culture gives people the freedom to choose how they practice their religion and support them and their choices...

So if they wish to interpret the Hijab in a different way, they have the latitude to do so, or they can wear a burka until they die... that is the funny thing about freedom. Our ignorance of their culture and religion and how it is practiced is no excuse to begin banning forms of expression or religious freedoms.

And lots of people practice forms of Hijab and believe in equality between the genders and have households with equal partnerships. And there are also head-covering practices for men as well.

And when you try to equate something to 'Men opporessing women' the truth is they basically mean 'Religion oppressing humans' and to many the simple act of practicing any religion is a human rights violation and they would criminalize and destroy religion if given the chance.

I would rather have freedom for all than selective oppression based upon majority whims and criminalizing expression and speech by the government.

nkelsch wrote:
I am glad western civilization doesn't have those issues... oh wait.

Well a fundamental problem with your claim is that Muslim societies also stigmatize homosexuals and not only commit great levels of criminal violence against them but often have laws which severely punish people simply for being homosexuals. Obviously the West isn't perfect, but the ideal type here is a secular-rational or secular-modern society, which the West approximates FAR more closely than predominantly Muslim societies. Again, though, we don't need to punish people for behaving according to their own laws on their own land. The real issue comes into play when it happens in our own societies because of a failure to assimilate.

Boils down to 'security' and 'protecting women' are both indefensible positions based off raw ignorance

That's simply false. Security, I agree, is a weak issue. Abuse of women is not.

or are being used to cloak an ulterior-motive which is basically 'intolerance of non-assimilation of culture'.

I don't think that's even an ulterior motive. It's the express motive. People should behave in accordance with reason and virtue, especially in public spaces. That doesn't leave any room for religious dogmatism or traditional attitudes about the way in which you treat your fellow citizens.

Basically they want one society, one culture to be all that is allowed and everyone needs to be forcibly assimilated. These attitudes are based in a history of racism, hate and violence.

I think it's entirely the opposite. We create universal (or near as we can get) norms about how people should treat one another and then we have the state apply those principles as stringently as possible. I don't want violence or hate against immigrants, I want people to integrate and become part of the same civic community that I belong to, where qualities like race and sex are understood to be irrelevant.

Freedom... as long as you live your life the way I do and by my rules. Right? Maybe people can just be allowed to have actual freedom and do what they want? Promote change via education and freedom not oppressive and pointlessly forced assimilation motivated by hate and violence through oppressive legislation.

The problem with that strategy is that education is being used as the chief tool of the multicultural agenda. I strongly support a curriculum which emphasizes dedication to the national community and a chief identity as "Citizen" rather than "WASP" or "Arab Muslim" or whatever else.

Well, it's worth noting that Islamic and Arab culture are not monolithic entities. I saw a pretty significant ratio of uncovered to covered women in Amman. The majority were covered but there was a not-insignificant number of women who looked like they'd be just as at home in Europe or North America, and I know for a fact that some were Muslim, and it's pretty safe to assume that most of the rest were also Muslim.

Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Gulf are certainly a different story.

Also I seem to recall a respected gentleman, a member of a group that is (in general) well-loved by the same people who think all Muslims are evil, once said "He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither."