Jump to content
Islamic Forum
atheist1

Israel's 'modesty Buses' Draw Fire

Recommended Posts

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6584661.stm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6584661.stm[/url]

 

The other day I was waiting for a bus in downtown Jerusalem. I was in the bustling orthodox Jewish neighbourhood of Mea Sharim and the bus stop was extremely crowded.

 

When the Number 40 bus arrived, the most curious thing happened. Husbands left heavily pregnant wives or spouses struggling with prams and pushchairs to fend for themselves as they and all other male passengers got on at the front of the bus.

 

Women moved towards the rear door to get on at the back.

 

When on the bus, I tried to buck the system, moving my way towards the driver but was pushed back towards the other women.

 

These are what orthodox Jews call "modesty buses".

 

The separation system operates on 30 public bus routes across israel.

 

The authorities here say the arrangement is voluntary, but in practice, as I found out, there is not much choice involved.

 

'Abuse and threats'

 

Naomi Regen is one of a group of women now taking the separation bus system to court. She is an orthodox Jew herself.

 

"I wasn't trying to start a revolution, all I wanted to do was get home," she tells me.

 

"I was in downtown Jerusalem and I saw a bus going straight to my neighbourhood and I got on and sat down, in a single seat behind the driver.

 

"It was a completely empty bus, and all of a sudden, some men started getting on, ultra-orthodox men. They told me I was not allowed to sit there, I had to go to the back of the bus."

 

Not only is the segregation system discriminatory, says Ms Regen, but it can also be dangerous, she says, for those like her who ignore it.

 

"I said to him look, if you bring me a code of Jewish law and show me where it's written that I have to sit at the back of the bus I'll move.

 

"And he tried to gain support from the rest of the passengers and I underwent a half-hour of pure hell - abuse, humiliation, threats, even physical intimidation."

 

'Positive discrimination'

 

Supporters of the separation system say the buses involved serve mainly religious Jewish neighbourhoods - but not exclusively.

 

"Modesty bus" in orthodox Jewish neighbourhood in israel

Men only through the front door of israel's "modesty buses"

Many passengers are not happy. You will hear complaints at bus stops all over town.

 

One man told me that if some people wanted segregation buses they should pay a private company to provide them.

 

Another told me that in a society that is democratic and where the buses are subsidised by the government, a minority's concerns should not override those of the majority.

 

But Shlomo Rosenstein disagrees. He is a city councillor in Jerusalem where a large proportion of israel's segregation lines operate.

 

"This really is about positive discrimination, in women's favour. Our religion says there should be no public contact between men and women, this modesty barrier must not be broken."

 

Uphill struggle

 

Opponents of the separation buses face an uphill struggle. Orthodox Jewish leaders are a powerful minority in israel.

 

Naomi Regen says the buses are just part of a wider menacing pattern of behaviour towards women in parts of the orthodox Jewish community.

 

"They've already cancelled higher education in the ultra-orthodox world for women. They have packed the religious courts with ultra-orthodox judges.

 

"In some places there are separate sides of the street women have to walk on."

 

She says that there are signs all over some religious neighbourhoods demanding that women dress modestly.

 

"They throw paint and bleach at women who aren't dressed modestly and if we don't draw a line in the sand here with this seat on a bus, then I don't know what this country and this religion is going to look like in 20 years," Ms Regen said.

 

Petitioners like Naomi Regen have asked israel's High Court to either ban the segregation buses altogether or to force bus companies to provide parallel bus routes for passengers wanting to sit where they like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

whilst i was in israel there were reports of women actually being stoned for walking through certain neighbourhoods on the sabbat, and not following the ultra-orthodox dress codes.

 

 

JCI - just gotta love it for its tolerance. :sl:

 

 

Peace and Love. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whilst i was in israel there were reports of women actually being stoned for walking through certain neighbourhoods on the sabbat, and not following the ultra-orthodox dress codes.

JCI - just gotta love it for its tolerance. :sl:

Peace and Love. :sl:

 

the orthodox have their own way of life, i feel as long as they dont pressure it on others they can live how they want. the same with extreamly religious muslims or christians. if they like their women to sit in the back, thats their culture.

 

yeah they throw rocks at people who walk through their neighborhoods on shabbat and arnt dressed correctly, but its not like they stone them to death. besides if you are stupid enough to walk through a ultra orthodox neigborhood you need a few rocks thrown at you.

 

dont get me wrong i dont like the priks, but they have a right to preserve their culture like any other extreamly religious sect of any religion.

Edited by eyal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how would you feel if there was a KKK majority suburb, and they forced jewish people to sit at the back of the bus, and threw stones at them for walking in 'their' streets?

 

people are free to hold their own opinions, they should not be free to remove others rights due to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how would you feel if there was a KKK majority suburb, and they forced jewish people to sit at the back of the bus, and threw stones at them for walking in 'their' streets?

 

people are free to hold their own opinions, they should not be free to remove others rights due to them.

 

that is western way of thinking, and in western areas this should be appropriate. however if a population living in an area of the east wishes to institute religious law, as a westerner you should at least abide by their customs while in their areas. that goes for any religious area. for example, it is unthinkable to for a female to dress in a provacative manner in say Mecca or the Vatican. why should it be any different in an ultra orthodox area?

 

if you dont like the way they live and disagree with their choice in a religious society, then dont go pass through their areas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and slavery was the 'way' for the South. I would not turn a blind eye and say "well, thats just their customs". If it harms other people who do not agree with their position as alloted by that 'custom', then it is a wrong, IMHO.

 

ultra-orthodox would not go to a beach and expect to be forcibly stripped to their underwear to fit in to the 'local custom', and nor should they enforce their rules though violence upon people who have different customs. Perhaps they should move to saudi arabia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah they throw rocks at people who walk through their neighborhoods on shabbat and arnt dressed correctly, but its not like they stone them to death.
What's that suppose to mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:sl:

If jews want to have segregated buses thats their business, we aren't here to judge the jewish way of life are we?

To each their own.

:sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you know what it it's supposed to mean.
I sure do, but i'm waiting for a response from eyal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sure do, but i'm waiting for a response from eyal.

 

it means that they arnt stoned to death. he made it sound like these people were seriously injured or killed by saying they were "stoned". i merely stated that no physical harm is done to these people. i was not bashing Islam, i think thats the way you took it. quite the contrary im defending Islam and ultra orthodox judaisms right to govern themselves.

 

ill reply later gnuneo

Edited by eyal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as a westerner you should at least abide by their customs while in their areas. that goes for any religious area.
what do you have to say about this ?

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetradio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Carnets/carnet.asp?numero=79841&auteur=2059&type=texte&niveau=3"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetradio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Carne...te&niveau=3[/url]

here is the translation :

The YMCA: a frosted debate

 

did the YMCA went too far accepting at the request of the hassidic community, of the ultra-orthodoxe religious Jews, to install four windows frosted in a room of gym? The goal is to prevent the young boys who attend the close synagogue to see women clothed of shorts making exercises.

 

A user, Renee Lavaillante, is circulating a petition so that YMCA reinstalls clear windows. For it, to frost the window, it is like the principle of the veil: “if we represent a temptation, we must be buckledâ€.

 

Mayer Feig, spokesman of the congregation Yetev Lev, recognizes it in interviews granted to various media: “We do not want that our children to become tempted by today societyâ€. He continue by saying that during the summer childrens go to holiday camps in the Laurentides region in order not to be exposed to women slightly clothed. This is also why television is banished. “We want to protect our culture and our religion in a laic societyâ€, he affirms.

 

This battle is for Mrs. Lavaillante a question of principle. Without speaking about the light which users are forbidden from.

 

The director of the YMCA, Serge St Andre, believed well to do: members also did not want to be seen and the hassidic community paid the windows. Surprised by the outcry, he wants to consult the users again.

 

Can a religious group impose its values, its rules, on the remainder of the society?

 

The answer is in the concept of reasonable accommodation under the terms of the Canadian Charter of the rights and freedoms. But, for the experts, this business has nothing to do with reasonable accommodation which recognizes the right to wear the veil or the kirpan to the school. Here, the cause is more a cultural shock, the refusal to live according to values' of the majority. The physical exercise in a gymnasium does not at all threaten the religious practice of the hassidim.

 

Good vicinity?

 

Then, is this simply a history of good vicinity, as implies it the hassidic community? Does one have to negotiate this kind of adjustment in the name of the mutual respect of the cultures, or the negotiation is equivalent to accepting integrism? Would this be an unacceptable concession, an attack to the equality between men and women?

 

In a democratic laic society, where everyone is equal, until where goes the obligation to live in harmony with one neighbors?

 

What is the solution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the principals what the Ultra Orthodox Jews have, but the way the try to employ them are a bit extreme.

 

PS: atheist1 did you translate that stuff yourself? If so, you translated it pretty well.

Edited by Younes Ibn Abd' al-Aziz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and slavery was the 'way' for the South. I would not turn a blind eye and say "well, thats just their customs". If it harms other people who do not agree with their position as alloted by that 'custom', then it is a wrong, IMHO.

 

ultra-orthodox would not go to a beach and expect to be forcibly stripped to their underwear to fit in to the 'local custom', and nor should they enforce their rules though violence upon people who have different customs. Perhaps they should move to saudi arabia?

 

in a western liberal culture, ultra orthodox can dress in whatever they want when they go to the beach. thats their right under a liberal scociety. however, i believe it is morally wrong to dress in say a g string or provacative bakini on a religious beach area.

 

and in the south slavery was legal until abolished because the majority of the population wished it. does it make it correct or morally right, no of course not. but according to the pricipals of democracy, people are allowed to govern themselves. this is a case of that, in a far less extream way. they are not pressing their religion on anyone, they just get angry if you go through their areas and violate their customs.

 

its not like there is a lot of them, if people want to live in a liberal society they can live in tel aviv or basically all of the country. all the orthodox ask is that people abide by their customs while in their areas (which i would be far more willing to abide by if they served in the army). i dont think that is too unreasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also gnuneo, i find it amusing that there are religious theocracies in place all over the world yet you pick out one population out of the ultra religious that happen to be jews and have a far more liberal view than other ultra religious populations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and in the south slavery was legal until abolished because the majority of the population wished it. does it make it correct or morally right, no of course not. but according to the pricipals of democracy, people are allowed to govern themselves. this is a case of that, in a far less extream way. they are not pressing their religion on anyone, they just get angry if you go through their areas and violate their customs.
actually, democracy is entirely impossible in any meaningful sense of the word if slavery exists in the same area - unless of course those people who are slaves have chosen that existence freely. Majority dictatorship /= democracy.

 

and the point stands - were a northern black person to go to the South, then they would have been forced to use the 'black's only' bus services etc, this is discrimination pure and simple, and i frankly don't give two hoots if this was "accepted customs" for that region, racial/sexual/religious discrimination is entirely wrong.

 

also gnuneo, i find it amusing that there are religious theocracies in place all over the world yet you pick out one population out of the ultra religious that happen to be jews and have a far more liberal view than other ultra religious populations.

 

glad that amuses you, even though it is not accurate. I didnt start this thread (which is about ultra-orthodox in israel), and there are other threads where i have criticised other 'ultra-religious' groups. Don't be so thin-skinned. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How typical to encourage freedom of speech and thought, only to ban it and become psychopathological when it affects us.

The principle of democracy does not entail in any sense the absolute ruling of the masses , democracy protect the right of the minorities so it wouldn’t become a dictatorship , no one have the right to impose anything on anyone if it’s not morally right , Saying God wants it does not translate to that ,and as posted earlier by gueno racial/sexual/religious discrimination is entirely wrong. you do not fight rape by punishing the victims .

 

By the way I m still waiting for the reply to my previous post .

 

Younes , I only edited the translation made by google .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How typical to encourage freedom of speech and thought, only to ban it and become psychopathological when it affects us.

The principle of democracy does not entail in any sense the absolute ruling of the masses , democracy protect the right of the minorities so it wouldn’t become a dictatorship , no one have the right to impose anything on anyone if it’s not morally right , Saying God wants it does not translate to that ,and as posted earlier by gueno racial/sexual/religious discrimination is entirely wrong. you do not fight rape by punishing the victims .

 

By the way I m still waiting for the reply to my previous post .

 

Younes , I only edited the translation made by google .

 

thats your opinion. i am western in thought and liberal in that area, but i feel it is impossible and immoral to force religious populations to adapt western methods. as long as they stay in their areas and hurt no one, i fail to see any problem.

 

as for slavery, that is a different issue than religion. but you cannot disagree that slavery WAS legal in the south based on semi democratic pricipals of the white population. it of course was wrong and sick, but it was legal until abolished by force from the north.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as long as they stay in their areas and hurt no one, i fail to see any problem.
apartheid mentality? And the whole point of the article was, that someone WAS hurt by them. And being stoned, even if not to death, is not a pleasant experience.

 

as for slavery, that is a different issue than religion. but you cannot disagree that slavery WAS legal in the south based on semi democratic pricipals of the white population. it of course was wrong and sick, but it was legal until abolished by force from the north.

 

legal it may have been, democratic it surely was not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

Whether the minority nudist and naturist are allowed to practice freely in your city?. Whether the society forces them to wear clothes are not? Do you call that fundamental rights violation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace,

 

Peace

Whether the minority nudist and naturist are allowed to practice freely in your city?. Whether the society forces them to wear clothes are not? Do you call that fundamental rights violation.

 

ROTFLMAO - i was waiting for someone to bring that up as a logical extension of my argument. :sl: :j:

 

 

the answer is - not yet. In DK & scandinavia in general, there is much less concern that the human body 'corrupts' people, and there matters have progressed far more. The UK is more retarded in its social development, and although there are nudist beaches (and also few mind if people go to secluded beaches and bathe nude without any fanfare), the repressive govt does indeed prevent public nudity, and thus encroaching upon civil liberty. Do i consider it a fundamental rights violation? Yes, in fact i do, it is not up to the State to decide what we should wear, it is not up the politicians to decide Islamic women cannot wear the burkha, nor is it up to them to decide minimum regulations. Naturally, this will take time to slowly filter through society, but i strongly hope that this is a direction british society will move in, towards the scandinavian acceptance of the human form as natural and beautiful, not something that *must* be hidden at all times.

 

i have noticed during my travels, that the more restrictive the social code is for dressing, the more abusive men are towards women in general - or at least western women, no matter how modestly dressed.

 

 

peace and love. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace

 

You are speaking as a normal person. Not as a responsible person who runs the society.

 

One thing I don't understand that why the western society always believes in evolution. Why not revolution. Few years back it was semi nude, then bikni beaches, then nudist.

 

 

 

Why don't they go for revolution. Declare the whole country as nudist place. Clothes should be banned. Why nudist beaches only, why not nudist cities and towns.

 

The message what I am try to convey here is, sentiments of the majority in the society should not be hurt by a few. Restrict yourselves to behavior adopted by the local society. You cannot move around in bikni on Indian beaches. Restrain yourselves and go back to your country and move around nude if every one in your society is doing so.

 

peace and love

Edited by ahamed_sharif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that is western way of thinking, and in western areas this should be appropriate. however if a population living in an area of the east wishes to institute religious law, as a westerner you should at least abide by their customs while in their areas. that goes for any religious area. for example, it is unthinkable to for a female to dress in a provacative manner in say Mecca or the Vatican. why should it be any different in an ultra orthodox area?

 

if you dont like the way they live and disagree with their choice in a religious society, then dont go pass through their areas!

 

Peace

 

i agree with what you say above...

 

i dont think its actually aphartied as long as the people arent forced into being in this community...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
apartheid mentality? And the whole point of the article was, that someone WAS hurt by them. And being stoned, even if not to death, is not a pleasant experience.

legal it may have been, democratic it surely was not.

 

apartheid? because i think religious people have a right to govern themselves and protect themselves from some of the more perverted aspects of western society?

 

no one is forced to be religious, it is their choice and at any time they can throw down their religious garmets and move a few miles over into a western area.

 

it is not like they restrain you and stone you to death. they throw rocks in your general direction, they dont actually hit you. i know because its happened to me when i drove through one of their areaa on shabbat once. as i was in a car, they could of easily hit me and caused expensive damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace

 

You are speaking as a normal person. Not as a responsible person who runs the society.

au contraire, i beleive i am a democratic citizen in a soceity with democratic tendencies, thus i am automatically a "resposible person who runs the society". My opinion has weight.

 

One thing I don't understand that why the western society always believes in evolution. Why not revolution. Few years back it was semi nude, then bikni beaches, then nudist.

 

 

 

Why don't they go for revolution. Declare the whole country as nudist place. Clothes should be banned. Why nudist beaches only, why not nudist cities and towns.

 

some people do prefer revolution. I prefer evolution, a revolution is something that revolves back to where it started from. Thus the russian revolution led from an autocratic centralised corrupt czarist beauracracy, to an autocratic centralised corrupt soviet beaurocracy. No, evolution, the gradual change of a societies ideals through debate, discussion, and slow acceptance into widespread beleif, is a far safer and more secure method to go. IMHO.

 

The message what I am try to convey here is, sentiments of the majority in the society should not be hurt by a few. Restrict yourselves to behavior adopted by the local society. You cannot move around in bikni on Indian beaches. Restrain yourselves and go back to your country and move around nude if every one in your society is doing so.

 

peace and love

so are you arguing that if the sentiments of the majority of britons is that they find the burkha offensive, that muslim women in britain should stop wearing it? And that they should leave if they don't like it, instead of trying to change the laws to a progressive system where people can wear what they wish for their personal expression?

 

apartheid? because i think religious people have a right to govern themselves and protect themselves from some of the more perverted aspects of western society?

 

yes. These people want the right, whilst living in a wider community, to be able to proclaim that within an area they have the right to discriminate and harm against people because they happen to be in a majority in that area. How would they like it if the wider society started throwing stones at *them* when they left the area because of the way they dressed? If they wouldnt like it, then the Law is simple - Don't Do Unto Others That Which You Wouldn't Want Done To Yourself.

 

 

Peace and Love. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×