The Burka. Should wearing it be banned?

irishconvert

blueeyedboy wrote: »

But unfortunately they are in the security services eyes.
Look at MI5 in UK and the way they target the Muslim community their.

Being a Muslim in 2010 is a high risk from a security point of view whether we like it or not.

I am all for Human Rights but for piece of mind I would like the Hijab and Burka banned in all public places.

They can wear whatever they like in their own homes

Would you also like the headscarf my (Irish) mother and many other Irish women of her generation wear also? It is the same as a hijab.

GuanYin

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 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 ?

Oh gimme a break. I can tell you that you don't need to be a devout muslim to not want to be treated by a doctor of the opposite sex.

A majority of my private patients are female, most of the minority of males were emergency cases who stuck with with me because I did a good job. If they had a choice, they probably would have taken a male physician. We don't say it implicitly, but our hiring policy ensures we have a spread of male/female physicians to match the local demographics.

Ridiculous to suggest this is something imposed by the muslim faith when a large proportion of the rest of the world takes it as a matter of choice.

BTW, I know this is anecdotal, so references:

Patient preference for emergency physician age and gender:The American Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume 22, Issue 6, October 2004, Page 503

Physician Gender, Patient Gender, and Primary Care
Journal of Women's Health. January 2003, 12(1): 73-80.

Women patients' preference for women physicians is a barrier to colon cancer screening
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume 62, Issue 2, August 2005, Pages 219-223

Bigdeadlydave

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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


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.

Yeah, the British army in Northern Ireland weren't involved at all.


In my opinion they should be banned in airports bank etc...I mean you are not allowed were a helmet in these places so why a Burka?

Iwasfrozen

Irishconvert wrote:

They should really have banned all Irish symbols from the UK.

Also one more thing here, if you take a look at the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom you will see a golden harp on a blue background.
Now this golden harp on a blue background also happens to be the coat of arms of the Rep. of Ireland and this particular shade of Blue is called St. Patricks blue.

So banning Irish symbols would have ment the British having to ban their own coat of arms and while at it strip the queen of her title as monarch of Ireland. Which they where never going to do.

Ireland and Britain are far more historically intertwinned then Islam and Britain and the banning of Irish symbols was not possible. Banning Islamic symbols however is.

Irishconvert, I know as a convertee to Islam you have a vested interest in this but do not allow your religious choices cloud your opinion on more important matters such as the dignity of a human being to be able to look in some ones face when talking to them.

anymore

IrishConvert. wrote: »

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?

You are aware that sexual abuse of kids is a sin in the catholic religion arent you ? didnt stop it happening though, did it and it didnt stop the catholic church trying to keeping it secret and moving the offending priests about.
Sex abuse has been known to have been perpetrated by priests/ officials in other non catholic religions as well, but that diesnt make its occurence in the catholic Church any less evil, does it ?

GuanYin

anymore wrote: »

You are aware that sexual abuse of kids is a sin in the catholic religion arent you ? didnt stop it happening though, did it and it didnt stop the catholic church trying to keeping it secret and moving the offending priests about.
Sex abuse has been known to have been perpetrated by priests/ officials in other non catholic religions as well, but that diesnt make its occurence in the catholic Church any less evil, does it ?

Do you advocate banning catholicism and christianity too? If you don't your comparison makes no sense.

anymore

GuanYin wrote: »

Oh gimme a break. I can tell you that you don't need to be a devout muslim to not want to be treated by a doctor of the opposite sex.

A majority of my private patients are female, most of the minority of males were emergency cases who stuck with with me because I did a good job. If they had a choice, they probably would have taken a male physician. We don't say it implicitly, but our hiring policy ensures we have a spread of male/female physicians to match the local demographics.

Ridiculous to suggest this is something imposed by the muslim faith when a large proportion of the rest of the world takes it as a matter of choice.

BTW, I know this is anecdotal, so references:

Patient preference for emergency physician age and gender:The American Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume 22, Issue 6, October 2004, Page 503

Physician Gender, Patient Gender, and Primary Care
Journal of Women's Health. January 2003, 12(1): 73-80.

Women patients' preference for women physicians is a barrier to colon cancer screening
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume 62, Issue 2, August 2005, Pages 219-223

You may be pleased to know that I am indifferent as to whether i am treated either a male or female professional but that isnt the relevant point is it ?
Read the pieces and it is clear some of these women dont seem to feel as if they have a chioce as to whether they can be treated by a male. Rightly or wrongly, some of them seem to feel it is wrong to be treated by a doctor. If you are persuaded that God doesnt want you to be treated by a male doctor, then free will doesnt enter into it. Your comments on forced marriage and honour killings please ?

GuanYin

anymore wrote: »

Read the pieces and it is clear some of these women dont seem to feel as if they have a chioce as to whether they can be treated by a male. Rightly or wrongly, some of them seem to feel it is wrong to be treated by a doctor. If you are persuaded that God doesnt want you to be treated by a male doctor, then free will doesnt enter into it.

They choose to be devout muslims and thus they choose what comes with it.
They could choose to be a "pick and choose" muslim, much like there are "pick and choose" members of other religions, where the person decides what religions rules they follow (sex before marriage anyone?).

Of course, you could argue they are brainwashed, then the same could be said of devout catholics, protestants, baptists, hindus, etc etc etc. Why pick one over the other. The fact is, every person who decides they MUST have a same gender physician has a reason. Poor self image, low confidence with members of the opposite sex, religion, anxiety etc etc. No reason (by your own, incorrect, assertion that it impacts healthcare) is better than another.

Your argument that their healthcare is being impacted is something you just made up. It isn't. It's a personal preference of many patients, across the world, from many religions. If you really want to have a laugh, statistically, Men are more likely to request a same-gender doctor than women.

Your comments on forced marriage and honour killings please ?

What comment do you want me to make? I quite obviously don't agree with forced marriages, or even arranged marriages (there is a distinction) and I don't agree with any type of killing. But how these assertions that Islam promotes these occurrences are laughably tenuous. As already pointed out, they both occur in other non-Islamic religions, non-Islamic cultures and even non monotheistic religions. Meanwhile, you yourself pointed out that Catholicism has equal evils in it's present.

So is your assertion that all religion is evil and all religion should be banned? If so, ok, you have a root of an argument. If you start picking and choosing and suggesting that the bads of one religion are worse than others, or that one religion has a less overall negative impact than another, well that's just personal preference on your part and really not tangibly supported by the facts.

So yeah, you should probably start by laying down your position broadly, and then narrowing it in on how your broader scale worldview specifically impacts your views on Islam. Otherwise, let us know why all other religions are exempt.

If you can do that without inserting conjecture as some sort of fact (as you did with the physician gender stuff), that would be good too.

Flamed Diving

IrishConvert. wrote: »

I say
Ban
Islamophobia

A phobia is an irrational fear. People can be afraid of Islam, and therefore be opposed to it, all while maintaining a rational sense. In addition, people can be simply opposed to Islam's doctrines, without a shred of fear, yet you would still label them Islamophobes.

It is an over-used term. It is a mis-used term. It is an abused term.

It holds little credibility with me because of the people who sling it around so.

P. Breathnach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

... Irishconvert, I know as a convertee to Islam you have a vested interest in this but do not allow your religious choices cloud your opinion...

Written, I presume, with absolutely no sense of irony.

irishconvert

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Irishconvert, I know as a convertee to Islam you have a vested interest in this but do not allow your religious choices cloud your opinion on more important matters such as the dignity of a human being to be able to look in some ones face when talking to them.

My opinions are not clouded. I simply don't believe in forcing women not to wear a garment of clothing if THEY CHOOSE to wear it. Western countries rant on about bringing democracy to the middle east but are now trying to oppress their own citizens and remove their freedoms. It's complete hypocrisy.

And since you mention your concern for the dignity of a human beings I wonder if you in favor of banning pornography where women are treated like pieces of meat?

irishconvert

Flamed Diving wrote: »

A phobia is an irrational fear. People can be afraid of Islam, and therefore be opposed to it, all while maintaining a rational sense. In addition, people can be simply opposed to Islam's doctrines, without a shred of fear, yet you would still label them Islamophobes.

I don't think banning the burqa will, as some people on here are suggesting, result in less terrorist attacks. Trying to assert this and actually believing it is an irrational fear.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It is an over-used term. It is a mis-used term. It is an abused term.

It holds little credibility with me because of the people who sling it around so.

I disagree. As a Muslim I see attacks from all angles everyday on Muslims. Pick up a newspaper and you will always find some kind of negative story about Muslims.

Nodin

Flamed Diving wrote: »

A phobia is an irrational fear. People can be afraid of Islam, and therefore be opposed to it, all while maintaining a rational sense. In addition, people can be simply opposed to Islam's doctrines, without a shred of fear, yet you would still label them Islamophobes.

It is an over-used term. It is a mis-used term. It is an abused term.

It's on occasion still entirely accurate, however.

Laminations

IrishConvert. wrote: »

I disagree. As a Muslim I see attacks from all angles everyday on Muslims. Pick up a newspaper and you will always find some kind of negative story about Muslims.

Do you expend any time on message boards trying to appeal to fundamentalist muslims to change their behaviour? I know that at the tail end of the troubles i was angry and ashamed at the IRA for acting 'in my name'. There are people out there despoiling your religion and a lot of muslims seem more worried about what the newspapers are saying about them

bonkey

Folks...please don't continue down the road of making this a personal argument.

Regardless of where you stand on the topic, personalising the debate is only asking for moderator intervention.

This has been a lively and entertaining debate thus far...don't spoil it.

Laminations

A few points

1. Earlier in the thread nij told me that no one was suggesting I wear a Burka so it didn't concern me and I should butt out. I applied his logic to FGM, it also doesnt effect me and no one is suggesting I do it so should I just ignore that if people want to do it here? I was in no way comparing burkas and FGM. I was making the point that behaviour doesn't need to directly effect you for you to have a opinion on it. And the wearing of burkas in public would effect me somewhat since in engage with people in public, as do we all.

2. Some people on here are using the slippery slope argument. I'm not a proponent of this stance. If you cant argue for or against burkas on their own merits then dont bother dragging in possible and tenable future consequences. There is a reason it is a fallacious argument.

3. What they do in Islamic countries is up to them to defend. If they have decency standards that we may not agree with its up to them to defend. We should not bring in punative restrictions here in a vindictive manner in order to restrict liberties of people because our liberties are restricted in other countries.

4. I dont see this as a restriction of liberties, I see it as a protection of values. We have the right to protect our values. I have no difficulty with garments of relegious expression. The only part of the burka I take issue with is the niqab, I have no problem with hijabs or jibabs. In fact people using a hoodie as a comparison should realise the difference. This is not a discussion of head scarves. I'm against a ban on hijabs (but do see the point of limited restrictions for institutions that require a secular uniform). I'd like to see someone seriously argue against head scarves - I'd disagree with them.

5. Speaking of bans, someone suggested poll. A poll is useless unless it is worded very carefully. The results from this poll suggest the majority of britons do not want a ban but they do want restrictions.

6. I also dont want to see a ban but agree with restrictions. I think our society values face to face contact. Internet and mobiles aside (these are recognised as impersonal and anonymous electronic forms of contact) when we interact in public and in person, our culture values facial expression in these situations. Niqabs dehumanise people, I dont strictly mean that the wearer feels less human but the public becomes private and impersonal with a bunch of faceless people milling around. Interpersonal interactions become less intimate, there is a lot of information conveyed by the face. We have an area of the brain just to recognise faces and other areas to process facial expression. The niqab devalues the face in interpersonal relations. The value our society puts on face to face contact, I believe should be the only thing up for debate. You may believe we shouldn't value it, why? you may believe we should but that tolerance should be put above all else, why?
I think a poll on this 'cultural value' would assess peoiples views on the niqab more precisely.

If you dont think facial expression is that important then read
http://books.google.ie/books?id=rr8e5oMlj44C&dq=facial+expression+human+communication+importance&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=j_RrS5OUFJSy0gTf_PjMBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CDQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=facial%20expression%20human%20communication%20importance&f=false

OR

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Z7g8AAAAIAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA321&dq=%22Trevarthen%22+%22Communication+and+cooperation+in+early+infancy:+A+...%22+&ots=vneFGiBqRj&sig=nKidKa-1tD2CfhUrnogipEMZ-Ig#v=onepage&q=%22Trevarthen%22%20%22Communication%20and%20cooperation%20in%20early%20infancy%3A%20A%20...%22&f=false

If you still think this is none of my business do you suggest I just ignore muslims in this attire? not very conducive to integration.

Eliot Rosewater

Laminations wrote: »

I applied his logic to FGM, it also doesnt effect me and no one is suggesting I do it so should I just ignore that if people want to do it here?

How does liberal, or live and let live, philosophy allow FGM when clearly the women involved is being interfered with unduely? You seem to be constructing some kind of false perverted idea of liberalism which you can then attack, probably because its easier than attacking real liberalism.

Liberals would like a society where people can live as they want, once their actions dont impact upon others. I know theres many caveats to what constitutes "impact upon others", but ignoring that for the moment: forced FGM is clearly encroaching upon a womens right to decide how to manage her body. Banning Burkas is encroaching upon a womens right to decide what she wants to wear.

In both cases liberals would argue for a womens liberty: we would ban forced FGM and allow Burkas.

irishconvert

Laminations wrote: »

Do you expend any time on message boards trying to appeal to fundamentalist muslims to change their behaviour? I know that at the tail end of the troubles i was angry and ashamed at the IRA for acting 'in my name'. There are people out there despoiling your religion and a lot of muslims seem more worried about what the newspapers are saying about them

Despite what many would have you believe these fundamentalist people are in the minority. The vast majority of Muslims are God fearing law abiding people who just want to live their lives like anyone else. The fundamentalist muslims you speak of, well to be honest I have not come across any, and I know lots of Muslims (I live on London) and spend a lot of time in the Mosque. As for nutcases on message boards, quite frankly I have better things to be doing than arguing with them. Who knows their motives or if they are really who they claim to me?

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In both cases liberals would argue for a womens liberty: we would ban forced FGM and allow Burkas.

Very selective in quoting me there, cheers

Laminations wrote: »

4. I dont see this as a restriction of liberties, I see it as a protection of values. We have the right to protect our values.

My question is do you think face to face interaction in public is valued in our society? Should liberalism trump values cos if thats the case we can all walk around with our junk out. You brought decency into this debate without realising its proper meaning. The wearing of the niqab (in certain places) is indecent and inappropriate in western society. Where is the live and let live when I take my shoes off in a temple? I do it out of politeness and a respect for the temple goers values and traditions. I am a minority entering a majorities environment. The niqab is a barrier to communication and integration and our values have a right to be respected

Laminations

IrishConvert. wrote: »

Despite what many would have you believe these fundamentalist people are in the minority. The vast majority of Muslims are God fearing law abiding people who just want to live their lives like anyone else. The fundamentalist muslims you speak of, well to be honest I have not come across any, and I know lots of Muslims (I live on London) and spend a lot of time in the Mosque. As for nutcases on message boards, quite frankly I have better things to be doing than arguing with them. Who knows their motives or if they are really who they claim to me?

Of course I realise its a minority, a very small one (like the real IRA). Is the last part there supposed to be sarcastic? anonymity of the internet and anonymity of the niqab??

Flamed Diving

IrishConvert. wrote: »

As a Muslim I see attacks from all angles everyday on Muslims. Pick up a newspaper and you will always find some kind of negative story about Muslims.

Nodin wrote: »

It's on occasion still entirely accurate, however.

Yes, I notice this too, and in certain cases it can be described as irrational and ludicrous. Much like the reaction of some Muslims to a certain cartoon, for example. Even the most honest reporter of that incident would still have had to write about the insane reaction to that little doodle. There is idiocy on both sides.

Nodin

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In both cases liberals would argue for a womens liberty: we would ban forced FGM and allow Burkas.

Yep.

Laminations

I left you with two questions

1. Do you believe face to face contact in public is valued in our society (for communication, interaction, emotional and social development, politeness).

2. If no, then fine we'll agree to differ. If yes then should it be protected.

Thats the extent of my argument.

Laminations

Do you think liberty should ever be curtailed for the protection of values? Isn't that what the mods are here to do? I find It highly hypocritical that you argue against me when i suggest a value (e.g. politeness) be protected and then i get a warning for an earlier comment i made to you (with no malicious intent) because someone else construed it as rude. We have sanctions to maintain standards and values, we have them here and we have them in the real world. Where is your campaign for 'live and let live' on boards? Its an over simplistic philosophy

anymore

GuanYin wrote: »

Do you advocate banning catholicism and christianity too? If you don't your comparison makes no sense.

No I am clearly not advocating banning Catholicism, Christianity or any other religion. You are free to make your own judgements as to whether my comarision makes sense to you or not.
For myself, I no longer attend Catholic services as I used to - that has been one of my personal reactions to sex abuse in the Catholic church. have also on numerous occassions contacted TDs and MEPS asking them to publicly speak out on various aspects of the Clerical sex abuse scandals - not very successfully, I am afraid !
I generally tend to be against banning and am not sure if i am right to agree with calls for banning burqas, However at least taking the ' banning side' of the arguement here forces me to think a bit more deeply about the whole situation which leads me to think that just looking at burqas in isolation is not very helpful.

Johro

Laminations wrote: »

A bit insulting?
I agree there are some women who want to wear it. My problem with this is that their decision is usually underpinned by beliefs that are insulting to males - as in they believe we would objectify them otherwise.

Which, let's face it, we do. Insulting to males? It's a bit sad though that women have to cover themselves coz men reckon they'd be unable to control their urges. Maybe those men should wear 'I'm with stupid' T-shirts. With the arrow pointing down.

Eliot Rosewater

Laminations wrote: »

Do you think liberty should ever be curtailed for the protection of values?

No, because "values" are totally subjective. What your really suggesting is that everyones liberty should be curtailed to suit your values. You then just hiding behind society.

Laminations wrote: »

Isn't that what the mods are here to do?

You voluntarily contribute on this forum, and if you don't like it you are free to leave. The same cannot be said of the rules the Government makes; you have to abide by them whether you like it or not.

Johro

Since I'm the one who started this thread I'd just like to say that I don't think wearing the Burka should be banned. I think telling women they can't wear it is just as oppressive as telling them they should. I think having to wear it is oppressive, demeaning and archaic. That doesn't mean that there aren't any Arab women out there who want to wear it and see it as their right. Which it is. An outright ban would probably make more women want to wear it in protest. Or maybe not. My point is it's not for any non- Muslim government to decide, or for that matter, anyone. Also, a ban would be ammunition for those screeching fanatics who'll say its just another stick to beat the Arab Muslim world with. And we could all do without that. They make people forget about all those millions of Muslims just going about their peaceful, daily lives, where ever they live.

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

You voluntarily contribute on this forum, and if you don't like it you are free to leave. The same cannot be said of the rules the Government makes; you have to abide by them whether you like it or not.

So people are not free to leave the country? The rules of government are far more democratic, we elect the government.

And it isn't just my value, I believe it is a societal value. And I believe you are skirting around my question to you. Do YOU believe that face to face contact in public should be valued??

Permabear

This post has been deleted.