jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (145 posts)

What about banning the face-covering veil in America?

  1. KK Trainor profile image61
    KK Trainorposted 6 years ago

    In some countries face-covering veils are being banned because they can present a security risk and some feel they show a lack of assimilation. Australia is the most recent example. Their proposed law would require a woman to show her face to law enforcement if requested, and if she refused she could face jailtime and a fine.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/07/10 … lift-veil/

    Muslim women here in the US must show their faces when being booked into jail or when they go for a license or id, but some do neither so may never show their faces outside of their homes.

    What do you think? Should muslim women assimilate and just trash the veil? Is it their choice to wear it or are they being subjugated by men? Are muslim men so animalistic that they can't resist seeing a woman in public without attacking and raping her? (I don't believe that, I just know that is some's justification for the veil - tempting a man is wrong...)

    I have always wondered, so let me know your opinions please.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Much of our low level security is centered around a picture ID.  Buying cigarettes or alcohol, cashing checks etc.

      If a muslim woman chooses to life in such a society it is up to her to follow the rules.  It would be totally unreasonable to change the whole of America to some other system of simple ID just to please a few immigrants.

      1. kerryg profile image87
        kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm okay with banning the burqa, niqab, and other face covering veils for exactly that reason.

        I think trying to ban the hijab, which only covers the hair, is idiotic and a clear violation of freedom of religion, though.

        1. KK Trainor profile image61
          KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I agree, I don't care about the head covering.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Absolutely.  Will we also ban cowboy hats and baseball caps?  To ban the hijab becomes a simple matter of religious persecution, not in any way related to security.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image79
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      A: "Hey, I know how to make us all safer!! Let's make it so that an entire religion is banned from doing one of it's most sacred practices!"

      B: "Brilliant! With an entire religious ideology mad at us, we'll be much safer!"

      A: "Agreed! We'll just finish desecrating the Constitution, and then get right on that!"

      1. KK Trainor profile image61
        KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Actually it is not a sacred practice to cover the face. The women do it because the Koran says modesty is a virtue basically. They interpret this to mean that they should cover themselves so that men will not be tempted. That is not sacred, it's just a choice they make.  But I see by your post that you obviously think it's a mistake, and that's fine.

        1. TMMason profile image65
          TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Not quite... the viel is a direct injunction from the qu'ran.

          The Quran says that women believers are to be veiled:

          O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

          S. 33:59 Hilali-Khan


          The Sunni exegetes al-Jalalayn say:

          O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks closely over themselves (jalabib is the plural of jilbab, which is a wrap that covers a woman totally) - in other words, let them pull part of it [also] over their faces, leaving one eye [visible], when they need to leave [the house] for something. That makes it likelier that they will be known, to be free women, and not be molested, by being approached. In contrast, slavegirls did not use to cover their faces and so the disbelievers used to pester them. And God is Forgiving, of any occasion in the past when they may have neglected to cover themselves, Merciful, to them in His veiling them. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; source)

          The Quran further says that the only time women can unveil themselves is in front of family members:

          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 (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's 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 God, that ye may attain Bliss.

          S. 24:31 Y. Ali


          The two Jalals write:

          … and let them draw their veils over their bosoms, that is, let them cover up their heads, necks and chests with veils, and not reveal their, hidden, adornment, namely, all that is other than the face and the hands, except to their husbands (bu'ul is the plural form of ba'l, 'male spouse') or their fathers, or their husbands' fathers, or their sons, or their husbands' sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or what their right hands own, all of whom are permitted to look thereat, except for the part from the navel down to the knees, which is unlawful for any other than their husbands to see; 'their women', however, excludes disbelieving women, for it is not permitted for Muslim women to reveal themselves to these; 'what their right hands own' comprises slaves; or such men who are dependant, on what food may be left over, not (ghayri, read as an adjective, or read ghayra as an exceptive) possessing any sexual desire, [not] those men who are in [sexual] need of women, so for example those whose male member cannot become erect; or children who are not yet aware of women's private parts, in [the context of] sexual intercourse, and so to these they may reveal themselves except for that part from the navel to the knees. And do not let them thump with their feet to make known their hidden ornaments, as in a rattling anklet [and the like]… (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; source; bold and underline emphasis ours)

          Another commentary states:

          … (and to draw their veils over their bosoms) and they should tie that; and then Allah mentioned the adornment again, and said: (and not to reveal their adornment) their bracelets and ornamented belts and other things (save to their own husbands or fathers) blood fathers or stepfathers (or husbands fathers, or their sons) real sons or milk sons (or their husbands' sons) from other women, (or their brothers) their milk brothers or blood brothers (or their brothers' sons) their real sons or stepsons (or sisters sons) their real sons or milk sons, (or their women) i.e. Muslim women who belong to their own religion, because it is unlawful for Jewish, Christian or Magian women to see them without their clothes on, (or their slaves) female slaves, not male slaves, (or male attendants who lack vigour) or male attendants who belong to their husbands who have no desire for women: i.e. eunuchs and elderly men, (or children who know naught of women's nakedness) children who are too young to sleep with women and do not understand what goes on between men and women, such as these can see the adornment of women without there being any doubt… (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; source)

          Moreover, Muhammad’s wives were only allowed to speak to men from behind a veil or screen:

          O Believers! enter not into the houses of the Prophet, save by his leave, for a meal, without waiting his time. When ye are invited then enter, and when ye have eaten then disperse at once. And engage not in familiar talk, for this would cause the Prophet trouble, and he would be ashamed to bid you go; but God is not ashamed to say the truth. And when ye would ask any gift of his wives, ask it from behind a veil (min wara-i hijabin). Purer will this be for your hearts and for their hearts. And ye must not trouble the Apostle of God, nor marry his wives, after him, for ever. This would be a grave offence with God. S. 33:53 Rodwell

          Thus, the veil is something which a believing woman must put on if she is to be pleasing to Allah, just as the hadith literature indicates:

          Narrated 'Aisha:

          The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. 'Umar used to say to the Prophet "Let your wives be veiled," but Allah's Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam'a the wife of the Prophet went out at 'Isha' time and she was a tall lady. 'Umar addressed her and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda." He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of "Al-Hijab" (A complete body cover excluding the eyes). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148)


          So...

          @Evan... when your religion, or parts there-of, threatens the safety of the public or country... yes, we ban it.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Right on, Evan!

      3. Repairguy47 profile image60
        Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        They are already mad at us.

        1. recommend1 profile image66
          recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And there are a very few backward people who still don't understand why big_smile

    3. Eaglekiwi profile image73
      Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      New Zealand law requires ALL head gear to be removed before appearing in Court or places of high security.


      (Bike helmets must be removed before entering a bank for example)

      The Court System is well able to provide close circuit TV ,should the woman no be viewed in public as well,so its not like there are not other options.



      Everyday streetwear burkas are accepted ,in much the same as any other uniforms -nuns,clery,other religious garments etc.

      I think the USA attitudes are similar being a multi-cultural nation too.

      Being a multi-cultural society, we should respect other's cultural beliefs.''

    4. IntimatEvolution profile image80
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The first amendment is why we can't just go around banning things of religious origin.  The other reason nobody has the right to tell us what you can and cannot wear.  This is America and we should be free enough to wear what we want.  I dont care what other countries are doing.  However deny someone the right to wear a veil in this country and I would be the first in line to protest!  We have our rights.

    5. platinumOwl4 profile image43
      platinumOwl4posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If the veil keep women from being attacked, then perhaps American women should assimilate instead. The statistics on rape in this country is unreal with no end in sight. And you want these women to assimilate. Why so they can become a statistic. And please don't use that security BS as an excuse for the so-called assimilation.

      1. KK Trainor profile image61
        KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Oh please, they don't have rape in the middle east? That's ridiculous. They just cover it up so that their fathers don't chop their heads off to save face.

        1. platinumOwl4 profile image43
          platinumOwl4posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps, in your haste to reply you misread the statement. I said if the veil keep the women from attack in America maybe American women should assimilate these women behavior. I did not say nor did I imply rape does not occur in the Middle East.

          1. KK Trainor profile image61
            KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't misread anything. You are implying that wearing a veil makes women safer from attack. That's ridiculous. If the veil protects women from attack, then women in the middle east, where the veil is worn, would be safe from attack. Unfortunately, here in America women have a choice to wear pretty much anything they want to. Being attacked has little if anything to do with what a woman is wearing, so for American women to start wearing veils to avoid being attacked is ridiculous. Whatever point you were trying to make, I just don't see how American women assimilating to wearing a veil is going to lower the number of rapes. ??

      2. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting post, too bad it's backwards. lol

      3. kerryg profile image87
        kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Rape and sexual harassment have nothing to do with what a woman is wearing. If a guy makes up his mind to rape a girl, he's going to do it whether she's dressed in a short skirt or a burqa that goes down to the ground. Likewise, a decent man (the majority, thank God) may be sexually aroused by the sight of a naked woman, but will not rape her even if he has the opportunity.   

        Implying that American women are responsible for their own rapes because they don't cover every single inch of skin in baggy costumes is disgusting and insulting to both women and men.

        1. KK Trainor profile image61
          KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you, you probably made that point better than I did. I don't know where Owl is coming from with that statement...

      4. Eaglekiwi profile image73
        Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hmmm...I see your point ,from a moral standpoint perhaps.

        I dont think we are meaning they accept another persons religion (mine for example,yours or his),but its important they, ALL, of us  do what the nations laws require.

        I know the Bible states, that Christians must obey the laws of the land.

        What does the Q'uran say about obeying the laws of another land ,I wonder?

  2. profile image0
    kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago

    This has been a wide spread problem increasing border to border.  My question is why is their a question?  Who in any stable state of mind would agree with this?  Seems an irrelevant topic as there should not be opposing views, but I guess there are, idiots.

    btw welcome glad your here smile

  3. Ben Evans profile image75
    Ben Evansposted 6 years ago

    No matter how arcane or sexist it appears to us, we should not ban someone from doing something customary.

    I really don't think we can legislate morality.  It is an individual choice to do so. 

    As distastful as this may be to many people here, it is also muslims right to do as she wishes.

    1. Greg Sage profile image59
      Greg Sageposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yet it is not mine.

      I cannot wear a ski-mask and get a driver's license.

      Police will beat me if I refuse to let them uncover my face to take a mug shot.

      Heck, I can't even wear a baseball hat in a bank.

      What is the purpose in even having a system whose entire purpose is to definitively establish identity if anyone who refuses to show themselves can simply claim to be whoever they want and we are forced to give them documentation to match their claims?

      What someone wants to wear outside of those situations is their own business, but to say they get a free pass when identity is involved is insane.  At least once a month, I go somewhere where they check my drivers license photo to match it with my name on the credit card... so I am put under scrutiny that others are not?

      I am a notary.  What exactly would you have me do when someone refuses to show me id claiming it is their religious right?  Tell me I HAVE to notarize it anyway?  What's the point in notaries or even ID's even existing then?  The driver's license thing is no different.

      1. Ben Evans profile image75
        Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Greg,

        You know what?  I don't like the idea of a woman wearing a veil.  That is my personal view.

        Legislating laws because we are angry is not a solution.  It is counter productive.

        If a person is being identified by law enforcment or they go do jail, they will be identified withoug a veil.  That is just common sense and has nothing to do with veils being banned.  If a person is arrested, they will obviously get a mug shot without a veil. 

        As Jeff had stated, in a retail situation the storekeeper has that right to refuse service. 

        An outright ban is riduculous.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This is not a case for morality.

      Given: you are the owner of a small grocery store and a smallish person walks in covered from head to toe, grabs a pack of smokes and a six pack of Budweiser.

      When s/he presents a credit card and a valid ID will you sell to him/her?  Bear in mind that it could cost you your store if the picture doesn't match the face hidden behind the veil...

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        As a store owner, you're within your rights not to sell that stuff to that person.
        This isn't a problem.
        If the person wants the smokes and beers, and is legitimately allowed to buy them, then they have to decide if they want the smokes and beers more than they want to wear their veil.
        The store owner has to decide if the money earned from the sale is worth the risk of selling those things to a minor.

        The grey area comes when dealing with things like law enforcement, vehicle registration, picture ID, and so on.

        Is it unconstitutional to make a person unveil themselves for a Photo ID when their faith dictates that they must not unveil themselves to strangers?
        Well, are they required by law to have that photo ID?

        As far as I know, we are not required in the US to carry an ID card on our persons or even have one to begin with. We need one to do stuff like drive a car, cash a check, and so forth, but unless we decide that driving a car is more important to us than keeping our faces covered, we don't need the ID.

        I think banning the veil is unnecessary, does nothing to make us more free* or more safe, and violates the free exercise clause of the Constitution.


        *Yes, it prohibits us from doing something that most of us would never do anyway, but Halloween will be a lot less fun if face-covering garments are outlawed. Nobody will be able to dress as Darth Vader. The entire 501st Stormtrooper Legion--a group that does a lot of charity work--would be criminalized.

        1. KK Trainor profile image61
          KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know about other parts of the country, but here you are reguired to have some type of photo id on your person and if asked by law enforcement you must show it. Otherwise you could, though most probably aren't, be arrested. You can't sit for a photo id without showing your face, but it's done privately at the DMV I believe. (behind some sort of screen I guess)

          If we have to remove sunglasses and hats to enter a bank, what about the person with the veil? Do they not enter banks? I don't know. Maybe they are so subservient that they never do anything that requires them to reveal themselves.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You are right, of course, but...

          Is there any possibility that if veils are allowed that the next complaint will be religious discrimination when the wearer can't buy certain things?  Can't drive a car or use a bank?  Can't get food stamps?  Can't do the 100's of things the rest of us take for granted?  I don't think so - I think it is inevitable that wearers will want and demand these things without providing the actions (positive ID) that the rest of us do. 

          KK is also right - if you're found without an ID you will probably be arrested for some nonsense claim such as loitering. 

          All in all, a public ban seems the easiest and most responsible.

          1. Reality Bytes profile image91
            Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            All hats and sunglasses should be banned next?

            1. Cagsil profile image61
              Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              That would be the next step afterward. lol

              1. Reality Bytes profile image91
                Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Reminds me of my favorite B. Franklin quote:

                “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Any time there are 2 or more individuals in close contact one or all will give up some of their freedoms to maintain the society.  It is unavoidable.

                  In this case, however, we are asking at an outsider wishing to join the society to give up some of their freedom to maintain, not gain, security for the rest of that society.  A world of difference to me.

                  1. Reality Bytes profile image91
                    Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Given up by consent not force.

                2. platinumOwl4 profile image43
                  platinumOwl4posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you!!! Reality Bytes, this is one of the best Ben Franklin quotes, I have heard. And as we speak out liberty is rapidly eroding.

          2. Eaglekiwi profile image73
            Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Freedom of religion though is not quite the same thing ,least I didnt think so in the U.S

        3. kerryg profile image87
          kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          A Muslim religious enough to be wearing a full face veil would presumably not be trying to buy alcohol in the first place, and I wonder whether they'd be doing much in the way of driving, going to the bank, and other activities where American society considers full face coverings to be inappropriate (and possibly threatening).

          One question I would be rather concerned about, though, is picking up children from school. In my area, parents are required to sign forms listing the people allowed to pick up their child from school, and if teachers can't identify the person behind the veil, what are they supposed to do?

          1. KK Trainor profile image61
            KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Now that's a great point and I had never thought of it. Wonder what the rules are on that one.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Whether the person wearing the veil is a muslim, or woman at all, is the point.  If one can hide their face so can anyone, and make the claim that they are a muslim woman.

            If you are suggesting that the wearing of a veil would require that such a person could not engage in the activities you list, it won't work.  That would indeed be religious persecution as I see it.

            You do make a very good point on day care, and there are hundreds of others.  Airline travel requires a photo ID.  What about next-of-kin in a hospital, giving directions on the care of a comatose "relative"?  I would certainly hope that the hospital would require ID!  Would you listen to or believe an unknown court witness that wouldn't show their face - that could be anyone at all?  Would you sign a contract with or rent a house to someone that refused to provide ID?  The list is endless.

      2. Ben Evans profile image75
        Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Wilderness,

        This argument has nothing to do with a grocery store or a bank etc.  As a store owner, this person has a right to positively identify age so they can also refuse service to a person who they cant identigy.  So because a person could buy beer or cigarettes, we should ban veils? 

        The last time I saw a woman wearing a veil purchasing cigarettes and booze, well I dont think I have.

        The shop keeper could lose his store because he did not refuse service is the store owners responsibility.

        A veil is just well a peice of clothing.  Maybe we should ban gloves because they obscure finger prints.

        The morality of the issue is that we think that woman should not have to wear the veils.

        Also it is an angry statement towards a group of people.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I did not explain myself very well, I fear.  If veils are generally permitted (although I've never seen even one on American streets) it gives rise to a massive problem in ID.

          Our society requires that we ID ourselves everywhere we go.  We cannot do hardly any kind of business without it.  Even if we buy food with cash (which few do) where do we get the cash except a bank that requires ID?  Will we then permit veils only for Muslim women that do no business of any kind?  Nonsense.

          Gloves - yes you may wear gloves.  You may be required to take them off, however, for fingerprints.  I have been printed at a bank, and have given them to work in a police station.  It happens. 

          Should a veiled woman remove her veil for necessary ID I wouldn't see it as near the problem but that is not the question here.  The question is actually whether she can hide her face and provide no ID where everyone else is required to.

          1. Greg Sage profile image59
            Greg Sageposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You're assuming it's even a woman under the veil.

            A few crippled soldiers I've met will correct that assumption for you based on their personal experiences.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              And there is the problem.  With clothing hiding every possible means of identification much of our security and safety (what little there is) is lost.

              People wrongly assume that anyone in such a veil is a Muslim woman and therefore safe but that simply is not the case.

          2. Ben Evans profile image75
            Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I live in Seattle and there are many people with veils here.

            Burqas are currently permitted.  People wear them freely here so there are no laws currently restricting them.  Life goes on pretty well and I have seen no problems.

            So the key here is that we would have to enact laws to ban people from wearing these. 

            Now from a fairness standpoint, we can claim that it is unfair for us so we should ban people who are clearly currently able to wear burqas from doing so in the future.

            Our society currently allows people to wear burqas and plenty do.....I can quite assure you.  To restrict this we would have to take a way a persons right that they are currently exercising.

            In a way it is hard to argue fairness.  You have your opinion and I have mine.  Lets however, put this in the context of the law and ask ourselves if there is enough reason to enact a law to ban burqas.  I personally dont think it will fly.  All other laws (whether or not these laws are incomvenienced) can still be enforced without a outright ban.

            To me the nature of the ban is more an expression of anger towards others as opposed to a law whose spirit is to protect us.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
              Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "To me the nature of the ban is more an expression of anger towards others as opposed to a law whose spirit is to protect us."
              Indeed. To ban the garment entirely is a useless expression of collective xenophobia.

              Plus, it would also ban other outfits that obscure the face, like jousting armor, Batman costumes, and Darth Vader outfits. The day dressing like Darth Vader becomes illegal is the day the Force is no longer with us.

              1. Cagsil profile image61
                Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                It certainly would dampen the "spirit" of children, with regards to Halloween. Would kids even be allowed wear costumes? for the Traditional day, to go trick or treating?

                lol A public ban is foolishness.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No I don't think that a ban will happen.

              I am also quite certain that if it doesn't happen there will be a relaxation of the ID rules and laws in the country for anyone wearing such a garment.  Without such relaxation an OK to wear the veil has no meaning to the Muslim woman that wants it.

              With that relaxation will inevitably come loss of security.  The question becomes whether or not we will give up a good deal of our everyday financial and physical security to accommodate a small group of immigrants?  My vote is No, and it has nothing to do with anger or xenophobia towards what is to me just another crazy religion demanding special rights and priviledges.

              1. Ben Evans profile image75
                Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You are welcome to your opinions.  Your discusion does appear as though you feel like it is unfair.

                "it has nothing to do with anger or xenophobia towards what is to me just another crazy religion demanding special rights and priviledges."

                These rights are not being demanded.  They already exist and have for many years.  It is you who wants to take them away.

                If there is another reason besided "just another crazy religion", then I could give you some ground.  The statement does also appear angry.

                It is your right to have your opinion.  I will have to say that I disagree with you.  I do not think there are any problems caused by someone covering part of their face.

                You question my opinion on a basis of not being fair.  Also  because rights do not deserve equal protection because "they are a just another crazy religion" (Which I guess should not be tolerated).

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  The right to refuse to provide ID does not already exist.  The requirement to date has simply been ignored for the very few that object.  Increasing numbers and increasing activity from terrorists have changed the playing field.

                  No, "just another crazy religion" is not anger, but rather resignation.  I'm tired of organized religion and religious peoples demanding (and getting) special concessions and "rights" that are available to no one else.

                  I believe that the concept of personal ID is very firmly entrenched in our society.  I believe that it is necessary for the smooth functioning as matters are currently set up.  I believe that to allow people to bypass those requirements at will will harm society both in small and large details.  I believe we will find more and more "muslim women" on our streets (no way to tell if the covered bodies actually are such).  I do not believe that women that wish to cover their face will willingly submit to exposing it when requested to. 

                  Given these things, particularly that I think Muslim women wearing a veil will not willingly compromise to the extent of exposing themselves when required, it seems best to ban the veil when in public.  We will not have a constant battle as to when is necessary to reveal the face, we will not have anyone that simply refuses to pull it down for any reason, and we will not have the (to me) almost inevitable fear and hatred that will arise when fools simply assume that anyone in a veil is a terrorist about to shoot.

                  1. Eaglekiwi profile image73
                    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Like Communism demands, no I do not think that is the way to go at all!

                    By all means expect the law be upheld (i.e ALL headgear,veils etc ,removed) when in any places of high security) but to suggest removal in public just because it doesnt fit in with everyone else or comply with Western clothing attire is undemocratic in my opinion.

                  2. Ben Evans profile image75
                    Ben Evansposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I never said anything about a person having the right to refuse to provide an ID.  With all due respect that has absolutely nothing to do with what I am discussing.  That is a tangential point.  I have never argued that point and you use this as your thesis.

                    I stated that the right to wear the veil exists and has and I can tell you it is not against the law.

                    So you are stating that because these women may not submit to existing laws, we should just out right ban them from exercising a current right.  You now what.......with all due respect, I do not understand how these two ideas relate.

                    We should also enact laws because you don't think a person will willingly follow the laws.  Does this have a bearing on whether they will or will not follow laws?  Would it be fair that we put a person in jail because we think they will commit a crime?

                    Wow........If you havent seen most of the ladies with burqas, they are elderly.  I have never and underline never
                    seen anyone with a burqa who scares me.  To say that we will mistake them as terrorists and shoot them is proposterous.

                    My statement has nothing to do with an ID period end of story QED.

                    It has to do with the banning of peice of clothing which I feel is not right.

                    ............and it appears you feel the law should be enacted because it could potentially be inconvient and someone might not comply with current laws.  You know what there are a lot of mights and maybes. 

                    ........If there is a situation that someone would have to reveal their identity, it will be upheld by current laws whether they are wearing a burqa or not.  I am sure of this.

                    Enacting laws out of an assumption of convenience is not right.

                    My head is spinning with all these circular arguments.

                    All I want to do is to live peacefully and I believe others should enjoy the same freedom.

      3. GoingOnline profile image60
        GoingOnlineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think their religion forbids them from buying or using both things you mentioned, so I would request for the veil to be lifted or the stuff left in the store.

  4. Jonathan Janco profile image75
    Jonathan Jancoposted 6 years ago

    And if they are truly subjugated or oppressed, they will not be truly liberated unless they do it for themselves.

  5. Reality Bytes profile image91
    Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago

    They can force a human to consent to giving up Rights to enter certain establishments.

    (You have to agree to molestation in order to fly.)

    Banks can refuse service if you do not allow them to identify you.

    But in general public No One has the authority to make you do anything!

    I could wear masks at all times.  As long as I do not commit crimes or try to go against rules of an establishment who can stop me.

    The same goes for religious wear.  A bank or mall or any other establishment can set up rules that the human must follow in order to enter.  Just like TOS of a website.

  6. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    I don't really see the problem. The veil is customary attire but an appropriate person, preferably female, is allow to look under it as necessary.

    If we limit permitted clothing to what might be required at a security check we would all have to walk around naked.

    1. KK Trainor profile image61
      KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Not quite. A face covering is the only thing that law enforcement might need removed in order to check identity. And when a woman wearing one refuses to show her face to a man there can be a problem.

      Are we supposed to always have a female officer available to check each muslim woman's face when required? We already have to have a female officer to do pat downs on suspects who are female, so it's really just a matter of time being wasted and inconvenience. It's not impossible to do, just time consuming for everyone involved. Facial coverings must be removed in jails anyway, so what effect does that have on this person who would normally keep her face covered around strange men?

      Just wondering what effect it could possibly have?

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        So you can require them to comply with an official request from certain personnel, rather than make them constantly walk around in what they consider a state of undress. I would see a face cover as pretty much like any item of dress in that way.

        1. KK Trainor profile image61
          KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well the veil is not allowed at all in a jail setting, so they must walk around in a state of undress if they get arrested.

  7. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    What about banning the face-covering veil in America?

    This form of question needs objectivity, not subjectivity.

    It must be looked at from two different points and then determined what is in the best interest of society.

    Security seems to be one view?

    Individual rights seems to be the other view?

    So, the major question is which pulls more weight?

    In the fear driven society of America, as it is right now, it would seem as though "security" continues to be the fear tactic politicians use, to circumvent individual rights.

    A person's individual right to freedom of religion and to practice that religion, should not ever out weigh what is best for society. Never! It is one of the primary reasons, those who kill in the name of a god or were told to kill others by a god, are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the laws of humankind.

    Should there be a ban on them? Certainly not. Society must evolve forward and it would certainly not be religious discrimination, to prevent someone who is wearing a veil from coming into any business, for security reasons. It should be the sole discretion of the business owner and none of government's business.

    1. KK Trainor profile image61
      KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ok, but what about entering government buildings where identity must be established? Or airports?

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Government doesn't need to "ban" the wearing of one. It only has to put rules in place, such as ID is required to get in. If it cannot be verified, then the person doesn't get in and must wait outside.
        ID is a requirement. Verify or go away. Either or. If ID isn't verified, then it's their choice to not follow security rules in place.

        1. KK Trainor profile image61
          KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Oh my! I can't believe we agree on this, I'm flabbergasted. But gratified as well.

          1. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Like I said before. I am an advocate for individual rights. It's my understanding that government and the religious establishment, have already gone too far in crushing individual rights, in the interests of what's best for society.

            It is literally ruining society, because too much oppression and not enough educated individuals. Government and Religion, love gullible, uneducated individuals.....both thrive on it.

  8. Reality Bytes profile image91
    Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago

    I would never allow any child molesting, thieving TSA agents to touch me or any members of my family.  They cannot force their searches upon me.  They can only do so with my consent.

    Of course I cannot fly due to my unwillingness to succumb to groping and searching.  That is my CHOICE.

  9. secularist10 profile image88
    secularist10posted 6 years ago

    An outright "ban" on an article of clothing makes no sense in a free society. If it was rebellious teenagers wearing a face-covering item, we would call it "freedom of speech" and that would be the end of it. But because this has to do with a "foreign" religion, people think it's different for some reason.

    The law sees no difference, because the law is not concerned with people's motivations, intentions or their heart. You can regulate clothing or make someone remove an article of clothing in specific situations where necessary without banning someone from wearing it who is minding their own business just because it makes you "uncomfortable."

    Modern Muslim women want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to live and work in a modern society where women have fought and bled for the right to vote and the right to lead independent lives, whilst at the same time partaking of religious customs and traditions that were created by and for a backward sexist world. At some point there is going to be a clash.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image91
      Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      They should abide by any Laws or rules which require them to show their face or ID.  If they choose not to remove their veil then they simply should not solicit those businesses or enter those buildings.

      1. secularist10 profile image88
        secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Absolutely. They have the freedom to wear their headgear and the freedom to not patronize businesses or participate in activities where headgear is not allowed. But as I said, they want to have their cake and eat it too. Reminds me of the Iranian women's soccer team...

        http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/76710

        Pretty soon we will have Muslim women suing to play beach volleyball in a burka.

        1. Reality Bytes profile image91
          Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I read through the thread.


          If a human would like to play sports within the rules of an organization then they either abide by the rules or they do not play.

          I always carry a blade of some kind on my person.  I leave this item in the car if I have to enter a Public building.  I do not want to leave it behind but I understand that I must consent to this action if I want or need to enter the building.

    2. Eaglekiwi profile image73
      Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Outright ban is silly.

      Im sure our society can work something out to suit eveyone.

      Know one objects to nuns wearing a habit after all.

      1. secularist10 profile image88
        secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I doubt it can work something out to suit everyone. Sometimes people just don't want to budge an inch, lol!

  10. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    There is no need to relax ID laws because of how people dress on the street.  You just enforce the removing of these items on request for a legitimate purpose, or allow it as a reasonble requirement for entry to secure facilities--as the law already allows.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      secularist is right - removing it every time an ID is required will invalidate the reasons for wearing it in the first place.  Those requirements are simply too ubiquitous.

      My bank knows me and only new tellers require an ID, but I am often required to provide on when using a credit card.  I bought a fishing license - ID required.  Certainly every cop will want to see it.  Every car rental will want one as will any airline travel. 

      It wouldn't surprise me to find that a busy person will have to produce it several times a day, and that simply isn't acceptable to a muslim.  Disregarding the time involved would you consent to stripping to skin to use a check or CC?  To get any kind of license?  To make a bank transaction?

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Works for me. They should have to remove the veil for a driver's license photo or an airport security check. Otherwise who cares?

      1. Patty Inglish, MS profile image89
        Patty Inglish, MSposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. I've had martial arts students that wore then with the practice uniform, tucked in, no problem.

      2. KK Trainor profile image61
        KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well that was the point of the legislation I was talking about in Australia, the story link is in the original question. The new law there would require a muslim in a veil to remove it for police if requested, but a woman tried to sue because she said she had been attacked and forced to show her face. The facts, obtained from the dash cam, showed differently, and that she indeed was the aggressor. She lost the case. 

        But some countries have taken it further, as I'm sure you know. France did ban the veil citing assimiliation issues. We will never ban something because of a failure to assimilate.

        But your post makes it clear where you stand, and I have to agree with you there.

  11. profile image0
    Home Girlposted 6 years ago

    We should have certain rules for all. It is a contemporary society not a bunch of idiots from a mad house. Some are walking around with a towel on their heads and 3 piece suit, others show me their pulled down pants, that are so low that they barely manage to walk,showing me their half naked butt, others look like they are ready to rob the bank. If you are such a stickler with your religion, stay in your old country! If you came to a different country you have to adapt to new traditions, to new lifestyle, and laws and clothing.I mentioned before that people wrapped from head to toe into something that looks like a table cloth scare me, and make me angry. I consider it an insult to my new country and to me. That's my point of view. Keep your religion and your national costumes at home, we have different traditions here, trust and openness played main role in this culture, always. Show me your home and your face and be proud of it.

    1. KK Trainor profile image61
      KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Oh my, I'm not sure that will fly. Here in America we have always (well not always, but for a while now) allowed people to pretty much do their thing as long as it didn't endanger others. We should welcome those of different cultures because they can teach us things, and there is nothing wrong with being open minded when dealing with new people.

      I don't care if someone wears a headdress because of religious reasons or personal taste. What about the nice black ladies all dressed up in their favorite African getup for church? They certainly look foreign but they're just Americans like you and me.

      I think the veil that covers a person's face is a different story, which is what we're talking about here. If you can't even tell what the person's face looks like, how can you know they are who they say they are?

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Spoken like a true Tea Partier.

      1. KK Trainor profile image61
        KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Excuse me but I'm a conservative and I don't agree with her either. Don't stereotype please.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't lump conservatives with Tea Partiers. I have much more respect for true conservatives, in the best sense of the word. Tea Partiers are radicals who, for the most part, aren't trying to "conserve" anything. They have all but destroyed the GOP.

          1. KK Trainor profile image61
            KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Well you just insulted me again as I am a Texan, so thanks again!

      2. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Hey Ralph, you might consider getting to know someone before you spout of foolishness. HomeGirl isn't a U.S. Citizen. She lives in Canada.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Spoken like a true nit picker, Cags!

          her comment was "spoken like a true Tea Partier." People with Tea Party attitudes aren't confined to the US. How was I supposed to know she's Canadian? My general impression is that Canadians are more sensible. She sounds like she's from Texas.

          1. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, she is originally from Russia. lol It would have taken you just a few seconds to check her profile, instead of jumping to label her opinions, which don't actually fit her true attitude. wink

            1. KK Trainor profile image61
              KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Wow, that's such a relief. I didn't think she had a very American attitude towards diversity. whew!

              1. Cagsil profile image61
                Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Hey KK,

                She doesn't have an American point of view, which is my point. She doesn't believe "Equality" can exist. wink

                1. profile image0
                  Home Girlposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks, Cagsil.
                  I am not against freedom, I know how it feels when you do not have any.
                  I am not against religion, if you keep it private and do not shovel it into my face.  I prefer to see open human  faces around me because I live in an open human society (I hope)  not among ghosts o... well, if somebody does not feel it, I cannot explain, I guess.

              2. Eaglekiwi profile image73
                Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                How come Im not hearing Americans remind others that they have a law called 'Freedom of Religion.


                In the United States, freedom of religion is a constitutionally guaranteed right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Freedom of religion is also closely associated with separation of church and state, a concept advocated by Thomas Jefferson.

                Just sayin...

                1. KK Trainor profile image61
                  KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, we all know about freedom of religion. The point is that national security is also important to most of us, and when law enforcement wants to see someone's face to verify their identity, then they should be allowed to see it.

                  I'm not advocating banning anything, I'm asking for opinions.

                  Everyone here would acknowlege the freedom to practice your religion of choice,or to practice no religion; but walking around completely covered in a public place is not required, it is a choice many muslim women make. Ask a muslim woman and she will tell you it's about modesty, not required but suggested by Islam.

                  1. Eaglekiwi profile image73
                    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I absolutely agree with common sense security protocols.

                    As far as everyone knowing about freedom of religion ,well sorry it didnt seem that way at all (observing many of the posts).

                    Catholics nuns wear head gear too ,and I dont recall that ever being a problem.


                    Personally I don't care what people choose to wear. I have seen some clothing that could be deemed offensive even, but its a personal choice I believe.

                2. Cagsil profile image61
                  Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Hey Eaglekiwi,

                  Freedom of religion is a right. No one is saying it isn't. Yes, Muslim women, by practicing their religion, must wear a covering for their face. However, for security reasons, with regards to business operation and safety, IF ID is required, then the removal of such should be valid, to confirm.

                  Sure, the person can practice their religion, but like all other rights, there are limitations, so as to protect the overall of society.

                  1. Eaglekiwi profile image73
                    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes I agree, for security reasons.

                    Any other time,should be ok..smile

                    I do understand the security issue though ,I had to redo my passport 3 times ,because I had too much hair showing wink or as the guy said ,your face must be clearly outlined..tongue

      3. Uninvited Writer profile image82
        Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yup, I feel some people in Canada wish they existed here.

    3. Uninvited Writer profile image82
      Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If that were all true then there would be no religions in Canada at all, we would all be following the spiritual practices of the natives...which actually wouldn't be too bad.

      And those people "wearing towels on their heads" can in no way be compared to teenagers who let their pants hang down to their knees. If seeing someone in a burka makes you angry then you are the one with the problem. Seems you have also complained in the past about feeling like a minority in Toronto because you are white. Canada has been a welcoming society to all...may I suggest if you don't like that then maybe you should have stayed where you were.

      You seem to want everyone to be like you...

      1. profile image0
        Home Girlposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No, I just want to see your face before I talk to you on the street, at the bank, even in forum it is easer to talk to somebody if you know how that person looks like. That's it.
        Is it too much to ask? And I do not hide my national traditions behind religion. if I have them I keep them private.

  12. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    If we are that worried about people being identifiable by sight, perhaps we should ban plastic surgery and cosmetics?

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      lol lol

  13. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    Seems like some want freedom of religion only for themselves but not for others...

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image88
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Lots of Americans have that problem, I've noticed...

  14. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 6 years ago

    So much for freedom,this is what you're all worried about?

  15. Jonathan Janco profile image75
    Jonathan Jancoposted 6 years ago
    1. KK Trainor profile image61
      KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wow, where the heck was that?!?

      1. Jonathan Janco profile image75
        Jonathan Jancoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Google burka on driver's license and click on the story that applies to the ACLU

  16. profile image58
    m.kamposted 6 years ago

    I would just like to point out that a muslim women is not required to cover her face though she is required to cover her hair with a veil. It would be unfair to tell someone what they can and cannot wear. A nun wears something similar to a veil, should she be banned from it? The thought of many face peircings scare me, should that be banned. Its called freedom. People worry about yourself. If a veil is or isnt worn what effect does it have on you? And yes when a women wears something revealing, guys do tend to look and wonder (that is why they do it!)

    1. KK Trainor profile image61
      KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I am not sure about your use of the word veil. A veil, in my understanding, covers the face. Something covering the hair would not be called a veil. So your point about nuns does not equate to anything like a person with a face covering veil. Nuns don't cover their faces, just their hair. And no one, I am guessing, would care about banning hair coverings.

      1. profile image58
        m.kamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Before you post get your facts straight. A veil is an article of clothing, worn  by women, that is intended to cover some part of the head OR face. Therefore nuns do wear a veil. My point is that there are so many problems and this is what people are worried about?

        1. KK Trainor profile image61
          KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Wow, that was incredibly rude. So sorry that my ignorance offended and thanks for being so kind as to educate me. I will never make that mistake again, I promise. Nuns = veils. OK.

  17. Lady_E profile image81
    Lady_Eposted 6 years ago

    Given Obama's background, I doubt we'd see the Ban in his time. It would be seen as a betrayal.

    On a personal note, I think we should not deter people from practising their religion. What next...? Christians not allowed to wear crosses on their necklaces?? 

    Nice Post. smile

    1. KK Trainor profile image61
      KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not sure what you mean by Obama's background. You mean because his father was a muslim? Even if that had any influence on Obama himself, I don't think that would influence his feelings about the veil. Even though his stepfather was also a muslim I believe, his mother did not wear a veil as far as I know. Not to pick on you, I am just wondering what you mean about his background.

      1. secularist10 profile image88
        secularist10posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Obviously because Obama is a radical Muslim socialist trying to destroy America, duh! LOL.

        I don't know why she thinks Obama himself has so much power. If the Congress really wanted to ban the Muslim veil, they could do it (at least for a time, before the Supreme Court overturned it). The President has very limited powers on an issue like that, since it's a legislative issue.

        And anyway, you're right, Obama's childhood was hardly spent in conservative Muslim communities. His father, a Muslim, married a non-Muslim woman. I believe both mom and dad were agnostics or atheists for a time--hardly a traditionalist Islamic background!

  18. profile image0
    Home Girlposted 6 years ago

    Some people have so much freedom they clearly don't know what to do with it.
    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/5264345_f248.jpg

    1. KK Trainor profile image61
      KK Trainorposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ow! My eyes are burning!! Thanks a lot.

      1. profile image0
        Home Girlposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Put on some veil on your eyes big_smile
        Or just join the club...

    2. profile image58
      m.kamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Okay. Now that is so IMMATURE!

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm pretty sure that's "wilderness" or "repair guy" in drag!

  19. darryljackson profile image59
    darryljacksonposted 6 years ago

    When we were kids we lived in various countries and told by our parents as this was not OUR country that we had to abide by the rules & regulations whether we liked it or not. In other words if you do not like, then return to your own country or find a country where it it suits you.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      But what about those whose country it is?

  20. profile image60
    efatimahposted 5 years ago

    Ay KK...
    When Muslim women (face-veiled) are asked to show their faces for ID purposes, license, passport, etc. they remove it if there is a female available and can see her privately.

    As for Muslim Women covering their faces, this doesn't mean their oppressed nor tied up and being treated like cattle. It's actually the opposite. Islam gave women all her rights. She has the right to drive, work, travel, get education, be social, etc.

    By the way, doesn't mean that she doesn't show her skin and wants men staring at her, that she's oppressed and that it should be banned. She has the right and freedom to practice what she wishes and believes in.

    Oh Yeah ... MEAT ATTRACTS DOGS!

    Women become cheap buying there selves to all men like that. Disgusting.

  21. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    I thought this was supposed to be the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE. Banning veils would be neither free nor brave.

  22. profile image59
    arzoo1posted 5 years ago

    The United States has the highest rates of teen pregnancy and births in the western industrialized world. Teen pregnancy costs the United States at least $7 billion annually, Somewhere in America, a woman is raped every 2 minutes, according to the U.S. Department of Justice!!
    looooking for a solution to rape, teen pregnancies, adultery?  simple enough! Islam Provided one! wear hijab or a covering which does not show ur body parts and prevent you from attracting opposite gender towards you. The practice of wearing hijab gives Muslim woman a huge responsibility of upgrading the moral status of society :-) its an honor not an oppression.  :-)
    As far as covering of face is concerned, to uplift the standards of security showing your face is not that of a big  issue but banning to wear a veil legally is more of like 'OPPRESSION' of Muslim women!

    1. Druid Dude profile image61
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What about mourning widows? What about blushing brides? Get a grip!

  23. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    You don't liberate people with mandates, but with choices.

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah agreed, I think it's a foolish religious expectation and possibly just a misinterpretation of the Koran but people should have the right to choose their religious rights, if they do need to be checked just have another woman do it.

      1. Druid Dude profile image61
        Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Besides, some women should wear something to hide their faces.smile

 
working