Breast-tax

[Hope]

Apparently, the early 1900s, some parts of British-ruled India had laws as to what people could and couldn't wear.  One such law - in modern-day South-Central Kerala, was that low caste women weren't allowed to cover their breasts.  If they did, they would be fined.  I'll let the BBC take up the story

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-36891356

Note that the article notes had been imposed by the King of the princely state of Travancore; but there is an implication that it was done with a least a degree of British complicity - the British resident would have known what was happening in his patch.

[floo]

The British have absolutely nothing to be proud about where their empire building was concerned. They regarded the people living in the lands they took over as lesser mortals!

[Brownie]

That is such a desperately sad story, shameful too that such a law was enforced.   

[Udayana]

No-one (else) notices any similarity with recent French/Belgian laws designed to prevent women covering themselves in public?

[Hope]

No-one (else) notices any similarity with recent French/Belgian laws designed to prevent women covering themselves in public?

Well, since those laws do not require women to walk around showing their breasts, there is pretty limited similarity, Ud.  The old Indian laws were designed to clearly segregate people of different caste and social standing.  The laws in France and Belgium are very different - if anything they are designed to reduce segregation - as well as allowing people to see who they are interacting with properly.  Have you ever tried to teach a Muslim woman who is all togged up in her burka?  I know of women teachers who find it very difficult to teach them as they are not receiving the usual facial expressions and other body language that human interaction relies on so heavily.

[Udayana]

No doubt people can rationalize, justify or argue about details, however both cases are attempts to limit or control societal change by regulating how women can present themselves.

[Hope]

No doubt people can rationalize, justify or argue about details, however both cases are attempts to limit or control societal change by regulating how women can present themselves.

Ud, the laws we have here are applicable to men and women, not just the latter.

[Udayana]

But of obviously of no significant relevance to men just as the "breast" law was of no relevance to lower caste men in Kerala. Applicable to men or not, they are seen as, and in effect are, discriminatory to Muslims.

[Brownie]

If we went to Saudi Arabia (exceptions are within a compound, where there are many foreign workers), we'd be obliged by law to wear an abiya.  I doubt anyone would object, when in Rome, etc, and wouldn't consider that we were being discriminated against.

I'm glad we don't have such laws over here regarding dress and hair covering, however it isn't unreasonable to expect people to show their faces.  There are no strict Islamic rules about dress except that men and women are to dress modestly. 

[Nearly Sane]

I would object. It's an evil society where they kill people for beliefs. I regard those who go to work there and the last few govts as supporting the killing and suppression. It was legal in Germany to gas Jewish popeopke, so when in Rome that was fine?

[Udayana]

There  again, in Saudi, women are restricted in how they can present themselves in public in the belief that this will prevent change in society. It is completely discriminatory against all women.

The abaya rule may not directly discriminate against Christians, but there is plenty of enshrined discrimination anyway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia

[Brownie]

Er....no NS, but I wasn't thinking in such extremes, more of people who used to work there on contract to earn some money, especially during the recession before last (late 1980s/early 90s), when so many firms went out of business and people lost their houses left right and centre.

However if I went to a country where it was considered immodest to show legs, arms etc, I wouldn't object to complying with the customs.

Saudi and Iran are, I think, the only countries that have that dress code enshrined in law.

[Nearly Sane]

Er....no NS, but I wasn't thinking in such extremes, more of people who used to work there on contract to earn some money, especially during the recession before last (late 1980s/early 90s), when so many firms went out of business and people lost their houses left right and centre.

However if I went to a country where it was considered immodest to show legs, arms etc, I wouldn't object to complying with the customs.

Saudi and Iran are, I think, the only countries that have that dress code enshrined in law.

Except those extremes are part of Saudi law. So you would say the treatment of Raif Badawi is not extreme?

[Brownie]

I did say those laws were enshrined in Saudi, NS. Saudi and Iran are, I think, the only countries that have that dress code enshrined in law.

Yes the treatment of Raif Badawi was inhumane in the extreme.  Did you really believe I thought it was OK?

[Nearly Sane]

I did say those laws were enshrined in Saudi, NS. Saudi and Iran are, I think, the only countries that have that dress code enshrined in law.

Yes the treatment of Raif Badawi was inhumane in the extreme.  Did you really believe I thought it was OK?

Well your position to accept the laws of Saudi indicate that? Is it OK to work there while they kill people for beluef/non belief?

[Brownie]

I do not think Saudi Law is alright, NS, but I wouldn't go there, certainly not now.  If I did go there, presumably I'd have to obey the law whether I liked it or not but that isn't going to happen.

You read too much into my post, maybe I didn't express myself very well but intimating that I approve of harems, women not having rights and people being flogged is a bit much.  See you later.

[Nearly Sane]

I do not think Saudi Law is alright, NS, but I wouldn't go there, certainly not now.  If I did go there, presumably I'd have to obey the law whether I liked it or not but that isn't going to happen.

You read too much into my post, maybe I didn't express myself very well but intimating that I approve of harems, women not having rights and people being flogged is a bit much.  See you later.

No, you seem to miss the point, you seen to argue that working there is fine
 It isn't. So mebbe rephrase your idea?

[Hope]

But of obviously of no significant relevance to men just as the "breast" law was of no relevance to lower caste men in Kerala. Applicable to men or not, they are seen as, and in effect are, discriminatory to Muslims.

Why would they have been discriminatory to Muslims, Ud?  Were a lot of the lower-caste families, that this law was apparently meant to affect, Muslims?  Even if some were, the low-caste Hindu women were also affected.

As for the comment about modern-day laws, there are no British laws about what one can and cannot wear.  Advisories, yes; laws, no.

[Sebastian Toe]

As for the comment about modern-day laws, there are no British laws about what one can and cannot wear.  Advisories, yes; laws, no.

Except Hope, if you are riding a motorcycle then you must wear a crash helmet!
(Unless you are a Sikh then you must wear your turban.)

Motorcycle helmets: the law

You must wear a safety helmet that meets British safety standards when riding a motorcycle or moped on the road.

https://www.gov.uk/motorcycle-helmet-law

Also if you are on a construction site

Does the law require head protection on construction sites?

For the vast majority of cases yes - on almost all construction sites the risks of head injury are such that the law requires head protection to be worn.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/faq-ppe.htm

[Udayana]

Why would they have been discriminatory to Muslims, Ud?  Were a lot of the lower-caste families, that this law was apparently meant to affect, Muslims?  Even if some were, the low-caste Hindu women were also affected.

As for the comment about modern-day laws, there are no British laws about what one can and cannot wear.  Advisories, yes; laws, no.

No, perhaps I was not clear, I meant the current rules in Belgium and France are seen as discriminatory to Muslims. 

The breast-tax in Travancore was part of a system of repression and exploitation of Hindu lower caste groups.

[Sebastian Toe]

However if I went to a country where it was considered immodest to show legs, arms etc, I wouldn't object to complying with the customs.

Would you go to a country where it was considered immodest to wear a top, and comply accordingly?

[Brownie]

Would you go to a country where it was considered immodest to wear a top, and comply accordingly?

Never in a million years thank you.
Frankly, I don't want to go anywhere other than here, maybe parts of Europe at a pinch.  I'd almost certainly do or say something out of place and it isn't worth the risk at my age.

[Hope]

No, perhaps I was not clear, I meant the current rules in Belgium and France are seen as discriminatory to Muslims.

No-one is disputing that, but they haved been brought in for logical reasons - not least security - I believe that hoodies are (or at least were) not allowed for that reason as well.  The Indian laws referred to in the OP were introduced for very different reasons, as you point out below.  As such, they aren't as comparable as you would want us to believe.

The breast-tax in Travancore was part of a system of repression and exploitation of Hindu lower caste groups.

[Hope]

Except Hope, if you are riding a motorcycle then you must wear a crash helmet!
(Unless you are a Sikh then you must wear your turban.)

Motorcycle helmets: the law

You must wear a safety helmet that meets British safety standards when riding a motorcycle or moped on the road.

https://www.gov.uk/motorcycle-helmet-law

Also if you are on a construction site

Does the law require head protection on construction sites?

For the vast majority of cases yes - on almost all construction sites the risks of head injury are such that the law requires head protection to be worn.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/faq-ppe.htm

I believe that there are turban-like motorbike helmets for Sikhs - as for the second example, I'm not sure I've ever seen a Sikh working on a building site.  Could that be because they wear safety helmets as a matter of course?

[Brownie]

Here are the up to date regulations about Sikh's turbans at work:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-overturns-turban-workplace-rule

I too have not seen a turbaned Sikh on a building site but perhaps if we visited an area that has a large Sikh community, such as parts of Bexley, Gravesend and West London, we would (if we were specifically looking at construction sites).  However it is a fact that a lot of Sikhs in this country do not wear a turban, especially amongst the younger generation.  They are not rejecting their religion or their entire culture but regard turban wearing as 'old fashioned'.