The Burka. Should wearing it be banned?

Laminations

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.

Why do you think indecency is the domain of nakedness or lewd behaviour?

Decency is an individual's adherence to social standards of appropriate speech and conduct.
Standards of decency vary greatly depending on the cultural context. Most nations have laws against indecency which regulate certain sexual acts, and restrict one's ability to display certain parts of the body in public

And if you say that Burkas 'offend' me again I'll report you. I've stated that I believe they are a barrier to integration and are inappropriate in western society. To argue that western society is tolerant, ergo everything is appropriate is ridiculous. Why are you even arguing here? By your logic if my views offend you then just ignore them.

Laminations

I'm just about ready to bow out here.

All I'll say is just as I think people shouldn't be allowed walk around naked in certain public places (unless for health and safety reasons), people also shouldn't be allowed walk around with full body and face coverings (again unless for health and safety reasons).

If the majority of the country / society disagree me me then fine, thats democracy. Societal values are formed by concensus amongst members

Laminations

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.

Where is your proof? Are you a psychologist? Would it not also hold that conversing with a veiled face is also not good for psychological and emotional development. Sure without seeing expressions how can you even tell the emotion of the other speaker?? How would a child socialise? how would they empatise? Its completely impersonal. It devalues the importance of facial expression in human communication

nij

Laminations wrote: »

Why do you think indecency is the domain of nakedness or lewd behaviour?

Decency is an individual's adherence to social standards of appropriate speech and conduct.
Standards of decency vary greatly depending on the cultural context. Most nations have laws against indecency which regulate certain sexual acts, and restrict one's ability to display certain parts of the body in public

And if you say that Burkas 'offend' me again I'll report you. I've stated that I believe they are a barrier to integration and are inappropriate in western society. To argue that western society is tolerant, ergo everything is appropriate is ridiculous. Why are you even arguing here? By your logic if my views offend you then just ignore them.

It's against the rules to report other users for no good reason.

Now, despite your linking me to wikipedia articles on the words "Law" and "Society", you still haven't managed to tell me how burkas are a 'barrier to integration', or how they are inappropriate in western society. What does it even mean to 'integrate'? Are goths and punks 'integrated'? Or should their attire be banned? How is any piece of clothing intrinsically inappropriate in a free country?

Your only argument seems to be that they block people's faces. Christ, you should see me in my hooded jacket in the cold weather, or more to the point, you should NOT see me.

nij

Laminations wrote: »

Where is your proof? Are you a psychologist? Would it not also hold that conversing with a veiled face is also not good for psychological and emotional development. Sure without seeing expressions how can you even tell the emotion of the other speaker?? How would a child socialise? how would they empatise? Its completely impersonal. It devalues the importance of facial expression in human communication

You can't see my face right now, and I'm sure you own a phone too.

No I'm not a psychologist. I was only speculating as to why such a law may exist. I'm sure any laws about walking around naked will eventually be dropped when society grows up a bit. Doesn't mean everyone will do it though. We don't exactly have a warm climate.

Laminations

nij wrote: »

It's against the rules to report other users for no good reason.

Now, despite your linking me to wikipedia articles on the words "Law" and "Society", you still haven't managed to tell me how burkas are a 'barrier to integration', or how they are inappropriate in western society. What does it even mean to 'integrate'? Are goths and punks 'integrated'? Or should their attire be banned? How is any piece of clothing intrinsically inappropriate in a free country?

Your only argument seems to be that they block people's faces. Christ, you should see me in my hooded jacket in the cold weather, or more to the point, you should NOT see me.

We are not talking about head scarves. If you cant tell the difference between a hoodie and a face veil then good luck to you. Blocking the face is my whole point. If you dont think facial expressions are an integral part of communication and communication is an integral part of integration then fine. I disagree. I also think its a mark of respect towards me for someone to uncover their face if they are talking to me. In fact i'm fine with the wearing of the burka at ill other times, but in situations of interaction it should be removed, out of politeness if not anything else.

P. Breathnach

nij wrote: »

You can't see my face right now, and I'm sure you own a phone too.

No I'm not a psychologist. I was only speculating as to why such a law may exist. I'm sure any laws about walking around naked will eventually be dropped when society grows up a bit. Doesn't mean everyone will do it though. We don't exactly have a warm climate.

I think I might become offended: I suspect that you are posting while naked.

Laminations

And i wasn't intentionally linking you to wiki articles on law or society. The piece i posted on decency was from wikipedia, but if you dont believe that explanation look it up in a dictionary.

anymore

The burqa is effectively a device which segregates society along religious and gender lines.

Laminations

Thinking some more on it there shouldn't need to be a law to enforce politeness. You are right, you cannot legislate respect between people. But if a section of society alienates themselves through veils as a barrier to communication and integration then you get parallel cultures, not multiculturalism.

anymore

I wonder if instead of seeing the wearing of the burqa as a sign of a liberal tolerant society, it might be seen as the visible symbol of the presence of an illberal, segragationist and competing culture which emerged in the aforementioned liberal society ?

Flamed Diving

To ban?



Or not to ban?

anymore

Thats a very hard choice

anymore

To those who recoil in horror at the linking of the wearing of the Burqa in society and FGM, I suggest reading the accounts of FGM in the UK :
http://www.bmj.com/archive/6994ed1.htm
Much has been written about female genital mutilation in Africa, but little attention has been paid to its existence in Britain. Though it has been illegal in this country since 1985, it is practised secretly or children are sent abroad to have the operation. From the social worker's point of view it is technically a form of child abuse which poses special problems. Black and Debelle review the historical back ground of female genital mutilation and describe its medical complications. Gallard discusses the problem in France, and Walder considers why such mutilation still continues in Britain.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5913979.ece
The NHS is offering to reverse female circumcision amid concerns that there are 500 victims a year with no prosecutions

Iwasfrozen

anymore wrote:

Thats a very hard choice

Ehh no it isn't.

Ban:
Burkas.

Don't ban:
Hoodies.

Problem solved.

kravmaga

For the Moderator of this Thread

Can we have a Poll vote to see what people think.

Yes or NO

There has been plenty of debate now, lets get a Poll vote

anymore

Could I also invite those in favour of a liberal and tolerant society where 'we live and let live 'to read up a little about forced marriages and ' honour killings ' in our liberal next door neighbour the UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/08/religion
At least 3,000 young women in Britain are the victims of forced marriages each year, with the scale of the problem far bigger than originally thought, according to a groundbreaking report out this week.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5710243/Up-to-8000-forced-marriages-reported-in-England-last-year.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/honourcrimes/crimesofhonour_1.shtml
They are often coerced into getting married to preserve "family honour" rather than allow them to form relationships with boys from other cultures or religions, it is claimed, or to help others move to Britain.
Honour killing is the murder of a person accused of "bringing shame" upon their family.
Victims have been killed for refusing to enter a marriage, committing adultery or being in a relationship that displeased their relatives.
In many instances, the crimes are committed by family members against a female relative.
More cases have reached the UK courts in recent years but a number of crimes still remain unresolved or undetected.
In some parts of the world, women who have been raped have also been murdered for the 'dishonour' of being a victim and the 'disgrace' it brings to their family.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/honourcrimes/crimesofhonour_1.shtml
Honour killing is the murder of a person accused of "bringing shame" upon their family.
Victims have been killed for refusing to enter a marriage, committing adultery or being in a relationship that displeased their relatives.
In many instances, the crimes are committed by family members against a female relative.
More cases have reached the UK courts in recent years but a number of crimes still remain unresolved or undetected.
In some parts of the world, women who have been raped have also been murdered for the 'dishonour' of being a victim and the 'disgrace' it brings to their family

Iwasfrozen

Oh for God sake anymore, don't copy and paste a wall of text your got off the internet, it's very annoying.

anymore

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Oh for God sake anymore, don't copy and paste a wall of text your got off the internet, it's very annoying.

God Iwasfrozen, its meant to inform, not annoy !
Does this mean you are not a liberal ?

kraggy

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.

Sleepy wrote: »

It'd be a foolishly brave woman who wore that sort of outfit in an Islamic country Johro.

She'd have been arrested and given a lashing where I was a few weeks ago.

Iwasfrozen

anymore wrote: »

God Iwasfrozen, its meant to inform, not annoy !
Does this mean you are not a liberal ?

So memorize it and right it down in your own words. And for the record, yes I do consider myself more liberal then conservative. At he same time tough, I don't talk to people wearing a Burka simply because I can't see their face.

irishconvert

Johro wrote: »

French authorities are considering banning the wearing of the Burka (or Burqa) by Muslim women resident in France. Other countries are having a similar debate. What do you think about it?.

Of course it shouldn't be banned. What a joke, banning an item of clothing because the women who wear it are allegedly "oppressed". What about the women who choose to wear it themselves, the French Government are going to oppress them by forcing them to take it off.

irishconvert

blueeyedboy wrote: »

Yes it should be banned.

From a security point of view especially in airports, public places, sensitive security buildings

What has the wearer to hide, they are in a western socirty and should respect that society and its customs.

I lived in London for many years and think the English were very tolerant people to put up with people wearing burkas especially after 7/7 terrorist bombings on the Tube and Bus system in London

Wow, I never knew the tube bombers were wearing burkas. Do you have a link to this? :rolleyes:

Nodin

IrishConvert. wrote: »

Of course it shouldn't be banned. What a joke, banning an item of clothing because the women who wear it are allegedly "oppressed". What about the women who choose to wear it themselves, the French Government are going to oppress them by forcing them to take it off.

Forcing people to do things is apparently ok if you don't like them.

97i9y3941

yes i think it should be banned,god knows we often hear storys of people been thrown in jail for defineing their laws,i mean,soon we be banning the angelous incase it would offend some..

Iwasfrozen

IrishConvert. wrote: »

Wow, I never knew the tube bombers were wearing burkas. Do you have a link to this? :rolleyes:

The tube bombers where male. Of course they weren't wearing burqa's.

The above poster ment that the British people where great in that they still allowed an external symbol of Islam to walk the streets after radical sections in the Islamic community had basically declared war on the British people themselves.

irishconvert

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The tube bombers where male. Of course they weren't wearing burqa's.
The above poster ment that the British people where great in that they still allowed an external symbol of Islam to walk the streets after radical sections in the Islamic community had basically declared war on the British people themselves.

Erm, I got the posters point, that's the reason I used the sarcastic smiley.

Yes, the British are great, they even still allow me to walk the streets of London despite what the IRA have done in the UK. They should really have banned all Irish symbols from the UK.

irishconvert

anymore wrote: »

Could I also invite those in favour of a liberal and tolerant society where 'we live and let live 'to read up a little about forced marriages and ' honour killings ' in our liberal next door neighbour the UK.
[/I]

You are aware that honour killings and forced marriages areharam (forbidden) in Islam. You are probably also not aware it a cultural phenomena that happen in Sikh and Hindu communities aswell?

irishconvert

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ehh no it isn't.

Ban:
Burkas.

Don't ban:
Hoodies.

Problem solved.

I say
Ban
Islamophobia

Iwasfrozen

IrishConvert. wrote: »

Erm, I got the posters point, that's the reason I used the sarcastic smiley.

And I got that you got the posters point. I just didn't use a smily.

IrishConvert. wrote: »

Yes, the British are great, they even still allow me to walk the streets of London despite what the IRA have done in the UK. They should really have banned all Irish symbols from the UK.

Not quite the same thing, the Northern Irish conflict toke place on soil belonging to Britain with half the trouble-makers identifying themselves as stirring sh*t in Britains name.

The British government could not have been seen to actively take part in the conflict on behalf of the British sh*t stirrers for fear of International back-lash. Particularly from the hugely powerful sh*t stirring ally of Britains who lived across the Atlantic and just so happened to side with the Irish sh*t stirrers in the conflict.

See ? No where near the same thing. There was far to much sh*t stirring in the Northern Irish conflict to get involved.