The Burka. Should wearing it be banned?

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

we have the challenge of varying degrees of cover. How, then, might we frame a ban so that it be enforceable? And how might we frame it so that it applies only to Islamic women, and not to nuns in traditional habits or to me if I dress for maximum weather protection on a bad day? Should we exclude surgeons who cover up fully for work? What if the surgeon is an Islamic woman?
.

The difficulty is not with degrees of cover, it is with entire facial covering. And I'd prefer if it wasn't aimed at just muslim women but all facial covering (that did not have a practical reason). Its like arguing we shouldn't have laws on knife possession because how would we cut our bread. A 12 cm blade and a bread knife and all knives. Its not difficult to use common sense to tell them apart

I'd equally be against a surgeon of any religion wearing their surgical mask in a bank and would consider it very rude if they attempted to have a conversation with me through the mask if there wasn't a hygenic reason for it.

Eliot Rosewater

Laminations wrote: »

Neither do I, but if they are interacting with this culture and this culture believes it valuable to interact face-to-face then that is where there is a lack of respect.

This is the first Ive heard of out "face to face" culture, and its quite ironic you introduce it now given that were talking through the medium of the Internet.

Laminations wrote: »

Female genital mutilation - I dont think anyone is suggesting that this happen to me (I am a man) or that I should do it to my daughters so the 'live and let live' philosophy you espouse suggests we should respect cultural values above our own

Seriously. You don't know what "live and let live" means. Go look it up or something, but please dont go on with crazy arguments such as claiming that Burka banning and FGM without consent is "live and let live". They clearly arent.

Laminations wrote: »

A 12 cm blade and a bread knife and all knives. Its not difficult to use common sense to tell them apart

Do bread knives dissolve once you try to use them to murder someone?

nij

Laminations wrote: »

Sorry how do you equate an argument about restricting the wearing of Burkas in public to hatred or intolerance of an entire culture?? What does Prince of Persia have to do with this?? I'd definitely be against allowing the carrying saracen scimitars if that was suggested. Why are you bringing in snake charmers and other such rubbish. I have a slight issue with this one aspect of islamic attire. I've no problem with other garments that express the islamic faith. Nice play of the race card - it should warrant a warning like Godwins law. How is it racist to highlight the traditions of a country??

It's quite clear why I brought those things up. I'm talking about the shift in the way we now think of the middle east in 2010. Just re-read.

And there's no need for you to have an 'issue' with burkas. If they offend you so much then just look away. It has nothing to do with you.

I notice you didn't attempt to answer my question about how burkas are an actual threat.

Female genital mutilation - I dont think anyone is suggesting that this happen to me (I am a man) or that I should do it to my daughters so the 'live and let live' philosophy you espouse suggests we should respect cultural values above our own

What are you talking about? You do know that this is forbidden in Islam, don't you?

anymore

P. Breathnach wrote: »

bonkey has put forward many of the arguments that I might have advanced, which spares you a long post from me.

Very few women in Ireland wear the burqa. More often, those who dress in Islamic style wear the chador or niqab. So we have the challenge of varying degrees of cover. How, then, might we frame a ban so that it be enforceable? And how might we frame it so that it applies only to Islamic women, and not to nuns in traditional habits or to me if I dress for maximum weather protection on a bad day? Should we exclude surgeons who cover up fully for work? What if the surgeon is an Islamic woman?

Problems, problems, problems! It can be very difficult imposing religious discrimination in a society that is largely secular, but is also formally tolerant of all religion.

But if I was responsible for security in a bank, I would feel entitled to refuse admission to any person whose face was covered.

What order of Irish Nuns have had to cover thier faces, except for eyes ?
Reference to Surgeons seems fairly silly !
People are not allowed to enter most banks now wearing motor cyle helmets, much less than covering thier faces.

If we are to accept some women have the right to wear the burqa for religious reasons, then it follows we must also accomodate these women if they demand that our health services provide them only with female health advisors.

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

This is the first Ive heard of out "face to face" culture, and its quite ironic you introduce it now given that were talking through the medium of the Internet.

Yeah? how about I meet you for a chat in the pub and I'll explain it through my motorbike helmet.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Seriously. You don't know what "live and let live" means. Go look it up or something, but please dont go on with crazy arguments such as claiming that Burka banning and FGM without consent is "live and let live". They clearly arent.

I think my point is quite clear. You dont need to enforce your dress code on someone else for it to be inappropriate in a society (based on that societies values). I could turn up to your wedding dressed as satan, yes thats my right but I'd be a prick to do it.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Do bread knives dissolve once you try to use them to murder someone?

Please explain

Eliot Rosewater

anymore wrote: »

If we are to accept some women have the right to wear the burqa for religious reasons, then it follows we must also accomodate these women if they demand that our health services provide them only with female health advisors.

They are two totally different scenarios.

In the first instance the State is merely operating a non-interventionist policy towards someone whos actions are impacting on no one but themselves.

In the second case said person is making demands of the State, in other words impacting upon all taxpayers, by requesting that money be used to accommodate them.

Yet another ridiculous comparative analogy.

Laminations

nij wrote: »

If they offend you so much then just look away. It has nothing to do with you.

Seriously? So offence (not that Burkas even offend me, its far too strong a word) should never be challenged but just be ignored??

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In the first instance the State is merely operating a non-interventionist policy towards someone whos actions are impacting on no one but themselves.

So you dont expect anyone wearing a Burka to interact with others? and you dont think that that interaction can make the one not wearing the Burka feel awkward because thay believe it rude to converse in such ways, or do you suggest like nij that we just ignore them?

Eliot Rosewater

Laminations wrote: »

Yeah? how about I meet you for a chat in the pub and I'll explain it through my motorbike helmet.

Granted its not the norm, but implying that talking without face covering is an intrinsic part of our culture is being disingenuous.

In either case, I dont see why our "culture" should be based on forcing everyone to comply with whats the norm.

Laminations wrote: »

Please explain

You were trying to separate cases of people wearing face covering into two neat groups of "necessary" and "not-necessary" that would conveniently fit your opinion on what should and should not be banned. My point was that its impossible to separate a 12 inch blade and a bread knife, they both can (and have) bebn used for violent purposes.

nij

Laminations wrote: »

Seriously? So offence (not that Burkas even offend me, its far too strong a word) should never be challenged but just be ignored??

It shouldn't be challenged if it's none of your business.

Why have you avoided for the second time telling me what the threat from a burka is? And why did you mention female genital mutilation?

anymore

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

They are two totally different scenarios.

In the first instance the State is merely operating a non-interventionist policy towards someone whos actions are impacting on no one but themselves.

In the second case said person is making demands of the State, in other words impacting upon all taxpayers, by requesting that money be used to accommodate them.

Yet another ridiculous comparative analogy.

As night follows day, one concession will lead to the other. Your anaysis may be satisfying and persuasive from your point of view, but it doesnt accord with human experience.

Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
“Female doctors must treat only women and male doctors must treat only men, except in cases of extreme necessity, .
‘He has explained to you in detail what is forbidden to you, except under compulsion of necessity’
[al-An’aam 6:119].”

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

You were trying to separate cases of people wearing face covering into two neat groups of "necessary" and "not-necessary" that would conveniently fit your opinion on what should and should not be banned. My point was that its impossible to separate a 12 inch blade and a bread knife, they both can (and have) bebn used for violent purposes.

And my point is that its not impossible to draw a distinction between face covering and other covering (head, shoulders, knees and toes...knees and toes). If you can readily draw a distiction between a persons face and the other parts of their body (which I hope you can) then a distinction between coverings of said parts is doable.

As for the internet comment - the internet is an accepted form of anonymous impersonal communication and interaction, it is a silly comparison. It is part of western cultures to see/read faces and expressions on social 'real-life' occasions

Using halloween masks as an example is also silly, these are again accepted at certain times of year. I'd not be happy conversing with a group of people in Kruger masks in a pub on Valentines Day (or maybe I would)

Laminations

nij wrote: »

It shouldn't be challenged if it's none of your business.

Why have you avoided for the second time telling me what the threat from a burka is? And why did you mention female genital mutilation?

Why do you think I think there is a threat? I dont. What is the threat of a bikini in Saudi Arabia?? There is no threat, its about respecting the value of decency - need I post the explanation of decency again?

And arguing that something shouldn't be challenged cos its none of my business is ridiculous.

Eliot Rosewater

anymore wrote: »

As night follows day, one concession will lead to the other.

I will repeat: they are two totally different things. Even though Islam is mandating both of them, the first has no drain on the State whereas the second does. As such there is no problem with allowing the first while not accommodating the second.

Laminations wrote: »

It is part of western cultures to see/read faces and expressions on social 'real-life' occasions

Clearly youve never visited the Computer Science or Mathematics department of a University.

PoleStar

Johro wrote: »

Just a point, if you took your wife to an Islamic country she would not have to wear a Burka coz she's not a Muslim.
She'd get stared at if she wore hotpants and a bellytop walking down the road but no more so than she would here.

This made me laugh. You have clearly never been to a Muslim country, even a moderate one.

Wearing hotpants and a bellytop would not generate the same reaction. It would invoke staring and comments from everyone that woman would pass in a Muslim country. Also, a woman dressed modestly would still be stared at. In more sever countries like Saudi, it is a requirement to cover up whether Muslim or not.

I can imagine the Saudi's are having similar debates in their countries (hey guys, maybe we should let visitors wear bikinis down at the shops etc".............eh no, there view is, if you want to go experience what its like in Saudi and even work there then you must live by their ways. So it should be here.

Laminations

Laminations wrote: »

It is part of western cultures to see/read faces and expressions on social 'real-life' occasions

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Clearly youve never visited the Computer Science or Mathematics department of a University.

Clearly you've never had a real-life social occasion

nij

Laminations wrote: »

Why do you think I think there is a threat? I dont. What is the threat of a bikini in Saudi Arabia?? There is no threat, its about respecting the value of decency - need I post the explanation of decency again?

So, you want Ireland to sink to the level of oppression of Saudi Arabia? Where people like yourself decide what 'decency' is? Ireland happens to be a free country at the moment.

And arguing that something shouldn't be challenged cos its none of my business is ridiculous.

Why? If someone is offended by goth men in make-up, or gays walking through the park, should they 'challenge' it, or get on with their own lives and leave others to theirs?

Laminations

nij wrote: »

Why? If someone is offended by goth men in make-up, or gays walking through the park, should they 'challenge' it, or get on with their own lives and leave others to theirs?

Sorry how dare you compare me to a homophobe? Offence needs to be in some way justified. I don't feel comfortable speaking to a faceless person. regardless of religion or creed. Not that I don't want to, but I think it is rude and impersonal. So unless you think integration is a terrible idea, I think their should be respect on both sides. Why shouldn't you respect my desire to speak to a face?

Eliot Rosewater

Laminations: my point (which you once again missed) is that culture is not a homogeneous thing. Different people are ... different. I have a much different idea of culture to most people in Ireland. Ive a different culture to most people in my University, because I don't like getting "sloshed" and going clubbing. Yet you're argument goes something like this: because your different from the majority you should be forced by law to get hammered and go clubbing.

It seems though when someone wants something done, even if it doesn't impact upon them, culture is often used as an excuse. As if we all do the same things. Let and let live, etc.

Laminations wrote: »

I don't feel comfortable speaking to a faceless person. regardless of religion or creed. Not that I don't want to, but I think it is rude and impersonal.

Dont talk to them. Or just deal with it. Dont get the State to shape society so that you will fee comfortable the whole time.

nij

Laminations wrote: »

Sorry how dare you compare me to a homophobe? Offence needs to be in some way justified. I don't feel comfortable speaking to a faceless person. regardless of religion or creed. Not that I don't want to, but I think it is rude and impersonal. So unless you think integration is a terrible idea, I think their should be respect on both sides. Why shouldn't you respect my desire to speak to a face?

Compare you to a homophobe? What are you on?

Offence needs to be justified? No, to BAN something, you need an actual threat. A threat that can only dealt with by an outright ban. You admitted there is no threat from a burka. We can't ban everything that offends us, because offence is subjective.

Laminations

Behaving certain ways (as is your right) may alienate you and be a barrier to integration. I think its perfectly valid for me to not feel comfortable talking to a veiled or masked face. So you can blame a society for not accepting you or you can look at your behaviour and notice you are not accepting the society to which you came to live. Like I said, any other form of expression of islam through dress is fine with me. I dont believe its repressive, I believe its maintaining our version of decency. The Saudis will have to argue for their version of decency.

Elmo

Laminations wrote: »

Why shouldn't you respect my desire to speak to a face?

It is also respectful to want to speak to a face.

Not sure if the argument about Immigration and Customs has been brought up, and that the authorities at the airport or in other areas of Immigration can't see a face. Well they actually will take the burka of the face for Identification. And their passport contains a picture of their face.

Laminations

nij wrote: »

Compare you to a homophobe? What are you on?

Offence needs to be justified? No, to BAN something, you need an actual threat. A threat that can only dealt with by an outright ban. You admitted there is no threat from a burka. We can't ban everything that offends us, because offence is subjective.

So you are saying we dont have decency laws? Do you think we should be allowed walk around naked?

Laminations

Elmo wrote: »

It is also respectful to want to speak to a face.

Very true for western culture. Its a common expression - I respect you enough to tell you to your face

anymore

[

QUOTE=Eliot Rosewater;64314710]I will repeat: they are two totally different things. Even though Islam is mandating both of them, the first has no drain on the State whereas the second does. As such there is no problem with allowing the first while not accommodating the second.

Now you might rightly say that the quotes below from an NHS publication (UK) are selective, but they demonstrate the results which are to be both expected and found where women are suppressed and have their opinions and value systems formed largely by a cultural system which is so rooted in medieval views of women.
.:
‘I wouldn’t tell my doctor because he would want to examine me [pause] plus I don’t think my husband would agree. A Muslim woman should not be examined by a male doctor.’ (Aged 45, .)Participants were asked about Muslim women being examined by a male doctor:
‘Muslim women cannot under any circumstances be examined by a male doctor, it is going against what is written in the holy book.’ (Aged 34, England

From a purely human point of view, it would surely be wrong to allow women to be corralled into a cultural system which militates so obviously against good health outcomes and then to say " As such there is no problem with allowing the first while not accommodating the second."
If you want to portray yourself as a good western liberal, could I suggest that you don't look on the burqa issue in isolation but you also consider some of the ramifications that follow.
Whats more important, the right to wear a burqa or the right to good health ?

Eliot Rosewater

anymore wrote: »

From a purely human point of view, it would surely be wrong to allow women to be corralled into a cultural system which militates so obviously against good health outcomes

Your fundamentally confusing positive liberty and negative liberty. Im saying that the latter does not imply the former.

nij

Laminations wrote: »

So you are saying we dont have decency laws? Do you think we should be allowed walk around naked?

I've never put much thought into law surrounding nakedness, but I'm sure it could be argued that exposing young children to sexuality is not good for their psychological and emotional development.

But what have burkas got to do with decency laws? How could you possibly argue that they 'indecent'? Something tells me you cannot make any such argument, and that they just offend you personally.

nij

Laminations wrote: »

Very true for western culture. Its a common expression - I respect you enough to tell you to your face

That is an issue between you and the wearer. You cannot legislate respect between two people.

anymore

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Your fundamentally confusing positive liberty and negative liberty. Im saying that the latter does not imply the former.

No I am looking at the reality of where fundameantal muslim practices have an impact on even female health outcomes in liberal societies such as the UK whereas you, I must respectfully suggest, are playing with words.

Elmo

nij wrote: »

I've never put much thought into law surrounding nakedness, but I'm sure it could be argued that exposing young children to sexuality is not good for their psychological and emotional development.

But what have burkas got to do with decency laws? How could you possibly argue that they 'indecent'? Something tells me you cannot make any such argument, and that they just offend you personally.

I think you can walk around naked in Ireland some strange out dated law or something. But if someone complains then the Gards can arrest you.

Nakedness does not equal sexuality. (I amn't a naturist but lets be clear).