Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Let's add to those photos:

[IMG]http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa104/young-fly-and-flashy/Stars_Without_Makeup_B-1.jpg[/IMG





and my favorite would have to be:

[IMG]




Without his makeup:




It's just to prove that make-up can alter one's facial appearance, in spite of what some "people" may say.

Bora they don't just use ordinary make up, they also use plastic putty ie. to raise cheekbone, eye brows, longer chin, ears etc.then over they use facial colour to gimmick. This business called make-up artistry.
Double bummer for Chocs.

Berrin wrote:Bora they don't just use ordinary make up, they also use plastic putty ie. to raise cheekbone, eye brows, longer chin, ears etc.then over they use facial colour to gimmick. This business called make-up artistry.
Double bummer for Chocs.

Well then it needs to banned nor at the very least restrict it to be worn at home only, behind closed doors!!! It should be removed from the shelves of all stores, raid homes, confiscated and burned!!!

In the meantime until all the makeup is removed from society, everyone boarding an airplane must be made to wash their face. Oh wait, if they did that they probably wouldn't look like the photo in their passport!!! Nevermind.

desertdudeshj wrote:Oh I disagree, many a woman are totally unregcognisable without their make on ! And many men will also vouch for that when they wake up next to someone they did not go to sleep with !

A few examples from the world of bollywood !



I think makeup is more of a security risk that the Niquab !

LOL the only people who would'nt be able to recognize women with and without makeup are those who've probably never seen any, like those guys accustomed to looking at women all covered. Another reason why full covering is no good.

Chocoholic wrote:
As I keep saying and you guys keep avoiding the point, if EVERYONE else has to show their face. Why should some people feel expemt from that?

No one is obliged to show their faces, it can only be a part of personal choice…So shall we start suspicion and questioning if one day most females start veiling themselves naturally?..

Chocoholic wrote:
I'll pull out a couple of bits - 'Muslim MINORITIES' yes covering your entire face is a minority so deal with what the 'MAJORITY' want, and as previously stated if you don't like the law of the land - go away!

That’s the weakness of democracy in the hands of malicious leaders and cheap politicians. Democracy just cannot be regulations for majority…Minorities are just as much human as the majorities…

Chocoholic wrote:
Bringing up other religious groups - again as previously stated - is a moot point, because none of them cover their entire face so you can't tell who a person is, so why would governments have an issue with them?

Other religious groups who don’t veil themselves can be just as much terrorists and security threats. On what bases would you distinguish and eliminate the evil amongst the good? Why deal with the criminal rather than crime? Dealing with the criminal is costly at the expense of non-violent people! And there is no way to ensure that the same crime will not be repeated by the same people..

Before prescribing punishment, Islam tries in the first place to wipe out all circumstances and motives that may lead to crime. But even if after a crime is committed Islam tries to waive the execution of punishment if there is any doubt about it. Could any other system match the justice of Islam?
It should be remembered that Islam, before prescribing punishment, aims at the prevention of crimes.
There can be no reason why some Europeans are afraid of the application of the rules of Islam except that they are criminal by nature and persist in committing crimes, which lack all justification.
http://www.islam4all.com/newpage18.htm

Redchief wrote:
There is no law in the world that makes everybody happy. It's always compromise. If some foreigner comes to my house and puts his feet on my coffee-table or wash his feet in my sinck, where I usually shave my face, I will never be happy regardless of how many times you call me chav, xenophobe or islamophobe.

If there is no law to make everybody happy that’s because people are diverse in culture, religion,education and nationality. That’s why only "the law of the creator" of us have the chance to survive and support rather than man made laws which would often inflict the desires of certain groups? That’s why only the "humans user manual" can unite us all on rational front rather than whims and wills of certain individuals in this vast universe and through complex interaction. Until we unite under the law of somebody above us we will continue to live chaos/misery amongst us and unfortunatly will never learn and take our lessons.

Redchief wrote:
You Berrin with your absract ideas in architecture cannot compromise. That's why such laws are issued.

I thought you were are nice decent person whom I thought I could exchange some rational, thought provoking information/articles with. But I do understand that it’s very difficult to break pre-judged thoughts and ego-centrism.

Chocoholic wrote:
And as I keep saying, till I'm blue in the face, until 'certain' people stop considering themselves different from others and enforcing their ways, these issues will continue.

I tell you the last person who pursued this sort of ideology was Hitler. And he was soon got rid off..
Do you fall into the same evil human category..Like making sure that everyone is uniformed in their looks and nature etc.to create one fabulous perfect human race..

You surely must know that such wills are against the nature of matter..

Chocoholic wrote:
That's a really easy question to answer! It's because of the PC brigade and the human rights morons who stand up and start screaming every time governments try to deal with the problems, er that would be the criminals, afterall there has to be a criminal to commit a crime - DUH!
Really simple answer, if you don't like it! Piss off!

And this comes from someone who calls herself most civilised and educated. You must be one of those who call like -minded people humans and the rest just "dogs"not worthy to listen or to consider…
Shame on you! ..
I see that science and technology has not been successful to liberate your mind as a human! A mean a human that is not only made up of some flesh but also with sensible human qualities and values.
Shame on you again!

If the ban is for security reasons, I would like someone to provide me with some info as to how many women wearing the face-veil were arrested for committing a crime, such as holding up a bank. As for a woman wearing a face veil who is a potential suicide bomber, does she really care who sees her face???

It is almost 9 years since 9/11 and countries have upped their security measures. I could see if this ban was proposed shortly after 9/11 as it would certainly be welcomed out of fear. But to bring it about now, it is more like instilling fear. Women choose to wear the face veil. They are not enslaved by it, but choose to wear it. The same way they are free to choose not to wear it.

This is not about "freeing" women, or for the purpose of security as there is nothing to support that claim.

Bora Bora wrote:If the ban is for security reasons, I would like someone to provide me with some info as to how many women wearing the face-veil were arrested for committing a crime, such as holding up a bank. As for a woman wearing a face veil who is a potential suicide bomber, does she really care who sees her face???

It is almost 9 years since 9/11 and countries have upped their security measures. I could see if this ban was proposed shortly after 9/11 as it would certainly be welcomed out of fear. But to bring it about now, it is more like instilling fear. Women choose to wear the face veil. They are not enslaved by it, but choose to wear it. The same way they are free to choose not to wear it.

This is not about "freeing" women, or for the purpose of security as there is nothing to support that claim.

When I was in KSA, there were several stories in the press of wanted criminals and illegals who were caught wearing an abaya and a niqab. Clearly, countless others do not get caught especially those who are out with a family or a male relative.

There was once a story of the so-called “night female bandit” who held up many all-night pharmacies. When she was caught, it turned out to be a guy disguising as a woman in an abaya. It was reported that the guy was able to mimic a feminine voice perfectly!!!

Nice try guys, unfortunately you still miss the point in that although make-up might alter ones appearance, you can still SEE THE FACE, and therefore identify the person, so once again - moot point.

This will become law whether you like or not, so too bad really.

-- Wed May 05, 2010 2:36 am --

rudeboy wrote:feel like loads of people saying why doesnt her highness just bloody piss off

i bet bora is thinking the same

You can think what you like quite frankly RB! At least I've given a justifiable argument as to why people need to show their face. None of you have given a decent one as to why 'certain' people should be allowed to by-pass what will become LAW!

You all always jump up and down and scream and shout about respecting the 'laws of this land', yet when you're asked to respect the 'laws of another land' you cry foul - that makes you a bunch of hypocrits! Plus the fact that you can't stand it when someone has a differing opinion than yours, well guess what sometimes you just have to agree to disagree, without being an idiot about it.

Chocoholic wrote:Nice try guys, unfortunately you still miss the point in that although make-up might alter ones appearance, you can still SEE THE FACE, and therefore identify the person, so once again - moot point.

So, altering one's appearance is ok - as long as you can recognise a face.

I've got a great idea - in the spirit of the wigs that some Jewish ladies wear to circumvent the rules which say married women can't show their hair - I'm going to suggest women wear burqas which have faces of women photoshopped on them. Then it will look like you can see a face and Chocs would be happy.

Hey - chocs, we could make some money with this idea - what do you think?



We could start with these realistic masks:




or

Why do you think all passports carry biometric photos these days? So that software can read a persons facial features and therefore identify them - wearing make-up does not obscure this - DUH! Obviously if you're fully covering your face biometrics cannot be read.

Once again your argument is null and void.

I like Shaf's idea!

An Arabic guy can then make believe he is married to some hot chick instead of the ugly old trot that really lives under the veil!

Its a bit like the movie 'Surrogates'!



Knight

^I guess we'll have to ensure we have a good supply of platinum blonde 'models' then?!



Cheers,
Shafique

Chocoholic wrote:
Why do you think all passports carry biometric photos these days?

how about as a protection measure against coalition led crimes abroad! They were the first ones getting worried hence introducing such systems.
Look have you ever heard saudies getting worried about their veiled women. Don't you think security is their concern as well?

Chocoholic wrote:You all always jump up and down and scream and shout about respecting the 'laws of this land', yet when you're asked to respect the 'laws of another land' you cry foul - that makes you a bunch of hypocrits!

QFT!

Berrin wrote:Look have you ever heard saudies getting worried about their veiled women. Don't you think security is their concern as well?

No, they don't worry about their women at all because they are travel restricted. They cannot drive, they cannot go out unaccompanied by a male member of their immediate family and it is unlikely the husband will allow them to have a passport anyway. They are trapped in the house making babies and totally subjugated.

There is heavy security in Saudi to protect Saudis against Saudis. They are paranoid about their borders, particularly those with Yemen and Kuwait, and their security is totally aimed at keeping everyone else out. Even having a visa issued at the express request of a member of the Royal family does not do you any favours. Its even harder to get out of the place!



Knight

Hey knight the point I am making is that, it's a common thing to see veiled women in around towns, public buildings, shopping centres, schools etc. and they never make a fuss about these poor veiled women..Why is it that it becomes a problem in Europe when it isn't in ME? That's the question?

Berrin wrote:Hey knight the point I am making is that, it's a common thing to see veiled women in around towns, public buildings, shopping centres, schools etc. and they never make a fuss about these poor veiled women..Why is it that it becomes a problem in Europe when it isn't in ME? That's the question?

I think you answered your own question. It isn't the Middle East!!! Apples and oranges Berrin.

You don't need a law to say that people need to show their faces at immigration - isn't that already a regulation that can be enforced.

What I am still waiting for is any cogent argument why a mother can't play with her kids in the park whilst wearing a burqa (why this should be illegal).

The only arguments so far in favour of this aspect of the law is 'everyone else shows their face, so what is the problem' or 'what have they got to hide'. I haven't seen the connection with parks (or streets etc) with security concerns etc.

In fact, the only argument that makes sense is that the 30 odd women in Belgium who wear the burqa aren't actually a problem and that this is a politically motivated symbolic law.

Chocs is getting her knickers in a twist over an imagined objection to people following this law or an imagined intolerance to those who think the law is a good idea. I've explicitly said I have no issue with those who believe this law is a good idea, I've just been exploring the justifications for it. I am still having fun reading the justifications and testing the logic!

By all means, let the Beligians pass and enforce the law (it is not law yet) - but calling people hypocrites for exposing the holes in the arguments that the law is based on a sound logic isn't a convincing argument to me.

It would be hypocritical if people said Muslim women should not follow the laws of the land but European women should follow laws in Arab countries - but thus far, I've only been critical of the explanations for the law. Surely it's ok to be critical?

Cheers,
Shafique

It may not be a law as yet in Belgium, but it is the law in Italy.

Although the law says "inside public buildings, schools and hospitals" she was stopped on the street in front of a post office (this from another article) on her way to the mosque. Note the interpretation of woman wearing the veil from the husband and from the Iman.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 115756.ece

The growing European row over bans on Muslim veils today spread to Italy after a Tunisian-born woman was fined for wearing a burqa, the first time such a penalty has been imposed in the country.
Amel Marmouri, 26, was stopped by carabinieri officers in a spot check outside a post office in Novara in northern Italy and given a 500 euro (£431) fine, payable within 90 days. She at first declined to lift her veil to be identified because the officers were male, but agreed when a municipal police patrol which included a woman officer was summoned.
The fine was imposed under a city ordinance introduced in January in Novara banning any clothing which “prevents the immediate identification of the wearer inside public buildings, schools and hospitals”. It marked the first time the regulation had been enforced.
Massimo Giordano, the Mayor of Novara, said the regulation was based on a 1975 national anti terrorist law making it illegal for men or women to be in public place with their faces covered. Similar local regulations have been passed at Treviso in the Veneto, Fermignano in the Marche and Montegrotto Terme near Padua.
Ben Salah Braim, 36, the woman's husband and a building worker, said he would respect the regulation, but would have to confine his wife at home since the Koran forbade other men to see her face.
“Amel may not be looked at by other men,” he told Corriere della Sera. “Our religion is explicit on this,” he said. “If this is the law in Italy, what can I do? I don't know how I am going to find the money to pay the 500 Euro fine.”
He said he had been aware of the local ban on burqas, and accepted that it was a general ban and “not against my religion”.
He said the incident had occurred last Friday in the suburb of Sant' Agabio, which has a high immigrant population, when he and his wife were on their way to the local mosque to pray. “I thought that at least on Fridays the burqa might be allowed.”
However, Izzedin Elzir, an imam in Florence and head of the Islamic Community and Organisations Union in Italy, said it was a “matter of interpretation” whether the Koran forbade women to show their faces in public. 'We are for the freedom of women and against veils of any kind,” he said, adding “Italian laws must be respected.” Mr Giordano is a member of the anti-immigration Northern League Party, which has campaigned against the building of mosques in northern Italy. He said he had issued the new regulation “for reasons of security, but also so that people who came to live in our city respect our traditions and customs”.
He added: "The regulations in Novara specifically cover people wearing clothing that prevents them from being identified in a public place, and a post office is a public place. The same would also apply to a motorcyclist who walked into a post office wearing a crash helmet. The people of Novara do not want to see people walking around in the city wearing a burqa.”
Mr Giordano said the ordinance was “the only tool at our disposal to stop behaviour that makes the already difficult process of integration even harder. Unfortunately it is apparently not yet clear to everyone that clothes preventing the wearer's identification can be tolerated at home but not in public places, in schools, on buses or in post offices”.
Paolo Cortese, the chief of police in Novara, also said the fine had been handed out because a post office was “a public building.' However Nicolo Zanon, a constitutional lawyer, said the legality of the “excessive” Novara regulation was “debatable” since it affected “individual rights and religious sentiment”.
Asked if his new ordinance would prove counterproductive if husbands closeted their wives at home, Mr Giordano said “husbands must take into account that in Italy men and women are equal and freedom is a fundamental right. If people do not respect our values, why do they come to live here?”
He said he was “not a racist. The racists are those who force their wives to dress like this.”.
Isabella Bossi Fedrigotti, a novelist and social commentator, said any husband who forced his wife to stay at home would pay the price by having to “take the children to school or the doctor, do the shopping, pay the bills and go to the bank or post office”.
The Northern League, an increasingly powerful ally in Silvio Berlusconi's ruling centre Right coalition, has tabled a Parliamentary amendment to the 1975 anti terror law altering the wording specifically to prohibit "the use of female garments common among women of Islamic faith known as burqas and niqabs".
There are an estimated 1,200,000 Muslims in Italy, or 1.5 per cent of the population, with most coming from Morocco, Albania, Tunisia, Egypt and Senegal.
Last Friday Belgium's lower house voted unanimously to prohibit women from wearing full face veils in public. If the bill is passed by the Belgian Senate it will become Europe's first national 'burqa ban'.
The French Government of President Nicolas Sarkozy is also drafting a bill that would make it illegal to wear the burqa.

I think you answered your own question. It isn't the Middle East!!! Apples and oranges Berrin.

No no no. an Apple is an apple and an orange is an orange everywhere you go..Did you mean if apples liked peeled or not?

Bora Bora wrote:It may not be a law as yet in Belgium, but it is the law in Italy.

Although the law says "inside public buildings, schools and hospitals" she was stopped on the street in front of a post office (this from another article) on her way to the mosque. Note the interpretation of woman wearing the veil from the husband and from the Iman.

The Italian law makes a bit more sense than the Belgian one which forbids the burqa altogether (if you take into account that women don't wear the burqa if they are not in public view - so banning it in public is effectively a total ban). (However the fine seems a bit odd given that the woman did reveal her identity to a female police officer and wasn't in a building at the time?)

I agree with the Imam - covering one's face is a personal choice, and I agree that the law should be followed. I've also made the point that the law will actually mean that there is less freedom of movement for the women who would choose to wear a veil when going out in public (as well as restrict those who have this choice put on them). This point is indeed brought out in the husband's comment.

Cheers,
Shafique

Berrin wrote:

I think you answered your own question. It isn't the Middle East!!! Apples and oranges Berrin.

No no no. an Apple is an apple and an orange is an orange everywhere you go..Did you mean if apples liked peeled or not?

I was thinking more like apple pie and orange juice.

-- Wed May 05, 2010 3:54 pm --

shafique wrote:

Bora Bora wrote:It may not be a law as yet in Belgium, but it is the law in Italy.

Although the law says "inside public buildings, schools and hospitals" she was stopped on the street in front of a post office (this from another article) on her way to the mosque. Note the interpretation of woman wearing the veil from the husband and from the Iman.

The Italian law makes a bit more sense than the Belgian one which forbids the burqa altogether (if you take into account that women don't wear the burqa if they are not in public view - so banning it in public is effectively a total ban). (However the fine seems a bit odd given that the woman did reveal her identity to a female police officer and wasn't in a building at the time?)

I agree with the Imam - covering one's face is a personal choice, and I agree that the law should be followed. I've also made the point that the law will actually mean that there is less freedom of movement for the women who would choose to wear a veil when going out in public (as well as restrict those who have this choice put on them). This point is indeed brought out in the husband's comment.

Cheers,
Shafique

Seems the Iman sees things with an open mind. The hubby - maybe he should relocate to Afghanistan.

Interesting that the guy says his wife would therefore only be allowed to wear the burqua 'at home'. Surely she would not need to wear it in the home as he should know what she looks like?

He claims that Islam is firm in that no other man is able to look upon his wife? Is that true?

I was under the impression than the Koran says it is a matter of choice?

Shaf, what is your interpretation?



Knight

Dubai Knight wrote:Interesting that the guy says his wife would therefore only be allowed to wear the burqua 'at home'. Surely she would not need to wear it in the home as he should know what she looks like?

He claims that Islam is firm in that no other man is able to look upon his wife? Is that true?

I was under the impression than the Koran says it is a matter of choice?

Shaf, what is your interpretation?



Knight

The Iman said that it was a matter of interpretation. See highlighted text. The Iman's "interpretation" is totally different that the hubby's "interpretation". I would say that the Iman is very forward thinking and his interpretation, whereas the hubby is stuck in the dark ages.

-- Thu May 06, 2010 1:30 am --

Bora Bora wrote:

Berrin wrote:

I think you answered your own question. It isn't the Middle East!!! Apples and oranges Berrin.

No no no. an Apple is an apple and an orange is an orange everywhere you go..Did you mean if apples liked peeled or not?

I was thinking more like apple pie and orange juice.

-- Wed May 05, 2010 3:54 pm --

shafique wrote:

Bora Bora wrote:It may not be a law as yet in Belgium, but it is the law in Italy.

Although the law says "inside public buildings, schools and hospitals" she was stopped on the street in front of a post office (this from another article) on her way to the mosque. Note the interpretation of woman wearing the veil from the husband and from the Iman.

The Italian law makes a bit more sense than the Belgian one which forbids the burqa altogether (if you take into account that women don't wear the burqa if they are not in public view - so banning it in public is effectively a total ban). (However the fine seems a bit odd given that the woman did reveal her identity to a female police officer and wasn't in a building at the time?)

I agree with the Imam - covering one's face is a personal choice, and I agree that the law should be followed. I've also made the point that the law will actually mean that there is less freedom of movement for the women who would choose to wear a veil when going out in public (as well as restrict those who have this choice put on them). This point is indeed brought out in the husband's comment.

Cheers,
Shafique

Seems the Iman sees thinks with an open mind. The hubby - maybe he should relocate to Afghanistan.

Dubai Knight wrote:Interesting that the guy says his wife would therefore only be allowed to wear the burqua 'at home'. Surely she would not need to wear it in the home as he should know what she looks like?

He claims that Islam is firm in that no other man is able to look upon his wife? Is that true?

I was under the impression than the Koran says it is a matter of choice?

Shaf, what is your interpretation?

DK - the husband did not say that the wife would have to wear the burqa at home, but said she would have to stay at home - i.e. not go out in public.

Islam is firm that only a husband and close relatives are permitted to look at a woman's outward signs of beauty - those that need to be covered up when one dresses modestly. The whole premise of a burqa is to allow women to mix in situations where there are other men - where there are only women and children, and close male relatives, they get their bling out or chill out in less modest clothing.

The matter of choice does extend to whether the face needs to be covered up. Within my family, only a few ladies make this choice and all of them would stay at home rather than leave if the Belgium law applied where they lived.

So, the interpretation that the Imam gives is not actually out of line with what the husband is quoted as saying - the hubby is actually saying that his wife won't go out in public dressed immodestly and that they consider showing the lady's face to be immodest for her.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Islam is firm that only a husband and close relatives are permitted to look at a woman's outward signs of beauty - those that need to be covered up when one dresses modestly. The whole premise of a burqa is to allow women to mix in situations where there are other men - where there are only women and children, and close male relatives, they get their bling out or chill out in less modest clothing.

Thank you, Shafique, for clarification. That's why I'm not surprised why Mr. Sarkozy spoke about liberation of women and Belguim government took some action.

So it's not a matter of choice for women to look beatiful, is it? Nobody asks women for this issue but everybody moans about burkha.

RC - in my experience, Muslim women tend to go over-board (in my opinon) with make up and beauty treatments - and I've seen no indication that they value beauty less than any non-Muslim women.

It's not a question of choice over what is considered 'beauty' but rather a question of who this display of beauty should be for.

Ironically, I know some Muslim women who choose to not cover their faces in public and wear less make up when going out, then put on more make up at home - they 'put on their face' as they say in the West when they are in the house and go more 'au naturelle' when going out (but still put on some make up)

As men, I guess we would prefer that all women put themselves on display for us - so Sarkozy's comments are indeed not surprising

Cheers,
Shafique

I cannot agree that Moslem women don't want to be attractive outside home and you achived the main goal of 1984. As a proof I read in media that ME women spent on parfume much more money than everywhere else. Each time I ocasinaly come to any elevator in the mall and see there somebody fully covered I found that it's true.

RC - I should have made it clear, the women I said put on less make up when going out are just a few examples that I know of - the rest are more like the women I referred to in my first line - i.e. that they go 'overboard' with the make up. I'd agree with you with the perfume bit as well.

I suspect it is a cultural thing, and note that we have these similar subcultures in the West too (eg Jewish 'princesses' of NY, Essex girls, WAGs etc)

I'm not sure what you are referring to as 1984 - in that novel, even in the home the women couldn't dress up and were under surveillance. In Islam, the men and women just have to dress modestly when going out.


Anyway, I came across this quote from a reader on the Economist's website today -

Yes, Saudi women deserve the right to be as minimally clothed as young American women in summer, or French women on the typical beach in Nice.

Then men could compare them on narrow visual metrics, and they could in turn, spend much time and money on worrying about their physical appearances. This is good for the beauty products industry, the women's clothing industry, the spa industry, and likely many more.

It is outrageous that Saudi women are insulated from the pressures to wear mini-skirts, tank-tops, and heels too high to walk safely on. It is unfathomable that Saudi leaders impose such a playing-field-leveling measure on Saudi women as head-to-toe coverage.

This head-to-toe covering business obviously has the impact to cruelly forcing Saudi women to compete not on appearance as do their Western counterparts, but on their work, studies, accomplishments, contributions, personalities and their wits. How can that be fair to women?

No, Saudi women deserve to be able to compete on the basis of their bodies, facial makeup, and their costly wardrobes -- just like women in America and Europe!

The arrogance of the West in imposing its ways upon others is sometimes so laughable that it is truly entertaining to behold.

shafique wrote: Jewish 'princesses' of NY

He-he. Do you speak in general or know somebody in particular?

Shafique, in my view you use stereotypes too easy to prove your point. Well, if it works.