My liberal instincts tell me that the moslem lady refusing to remove her veil should be allowed

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

to give evidence as she wishes.

Were I the judge, however, I'd be inclined to ask "well if you won't lift it for any man then how can any man know who the fúck you are you dippy cow? How does your husband know it's you he's sodomizing and not your fúcking mother? ( they all do sodomy you know - them muzzers ).

[Berni]

medieval peccadilloes should not be encouraged. The jury has to be able to use its judgement about whether she's lying through her teeth or not (she obviously is, btw) and wearing a veil is cheating. Like wearing sunglasses when playing poker.

Put her in contempt of court, stick the silly tart in chokey until she sees the error of her ways.

[Ashberto]

during the Troubles to have concealed his identity?

tbh the whole face-covering thing offends my humanist sensibilities.

[Monty91]

[Classic Jorge]

[Classic Jorge]

Or, like me, are you simply refusing to accept she would settle in such a dramatic fashion

[Snin]

cnut or she could use half her brain and wake up to the basic fact that religion is the sign of a feeble brain and ditch the whole religion thing entirely

[Snin]

[Ashberto]

should I ever be dragged screaming into the registry office. :-(

[Berni]

She seems not to grasp that she actually got a choice when it came to whether she chose to take her husband’s name. No-one was going to shun, disown, abuse or even murder her if she refused.

[Monty91]

[Curly]

People trying to stop other people from wearing them or people too stupid to realise their religion is wholly designed to oppress them.

[Berni]

Funny how easily you can post-rationalise how you've 'chosen' to do something that has been imposed on you over centuries.

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

[Hillary]

[Curly]

[Monty91]

is one that still strongly resonates with women, and is the main motivation or them doing so, despite it representing the patriarchal structure of society that we all like to think we have moved on from.

[Snin]

defend this argument if it was someone arguing that they didnt like the tories as had centuries of being downtrodden miners or some such..you and Mr C would be all over it..you also like to comment on how its not our fault about centuries of empire or something along those lines so therefore of course its choice..one can break ones mental chains whenever they choose B

( someone else may kill them of course but its still a choice)

[Berni]

oppression with actually seriously nasty repercussions should you refuse to be coerced into it. You might as well compare the social pressure on girls to depilate with forced female circumcision.

You are not dealing with rational, sane choices here. That's what Coren chooses to ignore. You are dealing with brutally oppressive patriarchy that can and does regularly back up its rigid mores with violence against women. Her comparing her 'dilemma' over whether to take her husband's name is offensively stupid.

For the record, I believe marriage generally to be archaic, anachronistic and patriarchal. Plus, I hate going to weddings.

[Monty91]

and healthy way.

Both are traditions borne out of a time that we are striving to move away from. Both are abused, albeit one more subtly than the other. So the difference is a matter of degrees only.

[Berni]

disapprove of one's choice and being erroneously addressed by one's husband's name are rather less problematic than being attacked with acid by one's male relatives or simply murdered by them because you've dared not to cover your face.

The patriarchal oppression of women (whether they are convinced to participate therein or not) is never 'harmless' or 'healthy'.

And, in general, the more intricate the rhetorical knots in which one has to tie oneself in order to defend a practice, the more certain one can be that the practice is indefensible.

[Monty91]

perpetuates the patriarchal oppression of women, albeit in a more subtle way.

Why you are limiting your definition of oppression to the mere physical?

[Berni]

I am not limiting my definition of oppression to the physical, merely saying that the veil represents a rather more urgent and immediately dangerous form than a woman choosing (important word there) under little or no social pressure whether or not to take her husband's name.

[Monty91]

So huge that they positivly look forward to doing so, event though they are blindly but willingly perptuating their own oppression.

That's how delusional a practice it is.

See, subtle differences but equally powerful.

[Berni]

coerced (often by violence or its threat) into a very, very visual symbol of their oppression? The two are not comparably problematic. You are effectively doing the 'we have our own cultural forms of oppression, so we should therefore stop banging on about this much, much worse form of oppression'. That's idiotic.

[Monty91]

modern day patriarchal oppression who may disagree that the two are not comparably problematic.

The reason you are inclined to get on your high horse about one and not the other is because, as you decribe it yourself, one provides a "very, visual symbol" of their oppression and the other is more subtle.