Burka ban

Rev Hellfire

It seems that the Belgian parliament has become the first (of hopefully many) the burka, with France to follow we can only hope our own government will now have the nerve to do what's right and follow suit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8652861.stm

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I'm religious and support the ban

too right, muslims should be free to live as we choose for them and no more!

Stercus Accidit

I'm religious and support the ban

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

too right, muslims should be free to live as we choose for them and no more!

I agree, the moral qualms of a society shouldn't be imposed by law.

Its a slippery slope.

Rev Hellfire

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I agree, the moral qualms of a society shouldn't be imposed by law.

Its a slippery slope.

This is more about normalising Muslims into European society.
I suggest you try going shopping with a paper bag on your head and see how you fair.
All societies impose their morals through their laws, but perhaps you feel religions should have a special place and be held above such concerns.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Rev Hellfire

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Then you have an issue, but one in which society has the final say.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Absolutely, you try walking down Grafton Street starker.

Society has decided that such behaviour is unacceptable and the government which reflects the will of society has legislated accordingly. For some reason people seem to believe that democratic governments are distinct from the society they govern and that ohh noze its religion you can't interfere with that.

Zillah

I have to admit that despite my normally ultra-liberal views there's a part of me that takes a token of solace from the increasing xenophobia in Europe. I like Europe, I like its culture, and one of the worst case scenarios I can envisage is European culture being overwhelmed by Islamic values. Sharia law is abhorrent to me, the more intolerant Europeans are to Islamic traditions the less likely it is to take root.

Of course another part of me lashes out and says that governments mandating particular varieties of clothes being forbidden is a tragic miscarraige of democratic values and I would fight with fervour to prevent such a thing. I'm torn. While hijab is without a doubt used by some men to oppress women, there is an argument to be made for women wanting it. Hijab basically refers to the concept of modesty. It is the desire to keep oneself reserved from the world and the view of others, and while I personally would like everyone to wear as little as possible (:D) I have to concede that wanting to obscure one's own face and body in public is a perfectly valid and understandable opinion, and I don't like the idea of legally forbidding someone from expressing that.

There are also two crucial practical issues at stake here: There is a security concern in terms of people obscuring their identity in public. Try walking into a bank with a motorcycle helmet on, or that halloween mask you love, and you'll see how we already restrict such things. The other one is the fact that hijab is important enough to some people that some muslim women are literally going to be house bound. Choosing to disobey the dictates of God in terms of their own clothing is not a very realistic prospect. Of course, when considering the security issue...has there been a spate of unsolved crimes perpetrated by Muslim women wearing Burkas in mainland Europe recently that I'm unaware of?

I remain confused on this issue and shall have to think about it. Someone else express strong opinions for once and I'll see if you can convince me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zillah

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're both basically standing on a house of cards here. Let's break it down to the core issue:

You concede that democratically elected governments are entitled to create laws by which to regulate behaviour in society? My freedom to swing my fist ends at the point where your nose begins. No society is free, there's restrictions for all sorts of things. The only issues to be discussed are the reasons for and against particular laws, and what their potential consequences are. If we can discuss that then I think we can deal with the issue, there's no point making broad statements about freedom and tyranny here.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zillah

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're just being pedantic now. Allow me to rephrase:
Do you concede that democratic governments are entitled to create laws by to regulate behaviour in society to protect people's core liberties?

Here's some thoughts:
- One liberty we enjoy is to not be the victims of terrorism. If burkhas can be shown to be a security threat then by banning them we are protecting that liberty.
- Another liberty is the freedom to show your face. If there are men using a hijab culture to control and oppress women then surely banning the burka is protecting their freedoms?

So where does my freedom to choose my own clothing end?

According to those in favour of this law, at the point where you obscure your identity.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnny_ultimate

Not particularly sure how I feel about this either. It depends which way you look at it, but it is a complicated argument. On one hand, surely people have the right to express themselves, especially with something like clothing. I'd be irked if I suddenly couldn't wear jeans. OK, no religious connotation there, admittedly. I by no means agree with the moral reasoning behind covering faces, but is a culture that exists, and is it right to ban it? It is one of those arguments where I honestly can't decide what I think is right - once I think of a point, a counterpoint springs up too :pac:

I definitely disagree with the concept of a burka, and yeah I can see it causing problems in wider society. Violence wise, I'm sure the vast majority of people would leave a woman wearing a burka alone, even if they don't agree with it. But some thug could see it as an incentive for violence, and is that person any better than a fundamentalist terrorist?

I don't know, it is a complex discussion, and while I'm sure this sort of blanket ban makes people more comfortable, are there certain rights being denied here?

Darlughda

I find women wearing burkas offensive to me as a women for everything that the burka represents, and how it flies in the face of all of the progressive moves made in western society since the 1950's and the achievements of the women's movement since the early days of the suffragettes.

The arguments made by women who adopt the burka are bollix, imo, its religious brainwashing and a whole pile of moral claptrap that has convinced some people that they have modesty that needs to be preserved, otherwise lecherous men just won't be able to stop themselves.

Zillah

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But you accept that you're not allowed to walk around naked, or wearing a T-Shirt depicting graphic rape?

You seem to be disregarding the entire concept of things being deemed "unacceptable", whereas every law in existence is based on things we deem unacceptable, from murder to theft and drug abuse.

If men are forcing women to wear this garment, that's an entirely different concern, and one that should be addressed as an issue of domestic abuse. Of course women should have the freedom to show their faces.

You don't honestly think that a culture where women are bullied into subservience is penetrable in terms of the law, do you? Honest question on practicality. Do you think that the law can do anything for women under overwhelming social pressure to conform to hijab beyond banning the burka itself?

So why is it being described as a "burka ban," then? Is it not equally a "gorilla suit ban," a "hoodie ban," and a "Halloween mask ban"?

Presumably because there is no one for whom wearing a gorilla suit is a way of life. Personally if I were creating such a law I'd phrase it in more general terms about people obscuring their identities in public.

Bear in mind I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm just going to test any and all strong opinions in this thread to see how they hold up.

Flamed Diving

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Only around 30 women wear this kind of veil in Belgium, out of a Muslim population of around half a million.

LOL!

So specific!

Zillah

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Only around 30 women wear this kind of veil in Belgium, out of a Muslim population of around half a million.

LOL!

So specific!

The legislative equivalent of a predator drone.

Flamed Diving

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Is that the title of the legislation, or is it a name, conjured by the media?

kiffer

I'm religious and support the ban

The law should be something like "because every person has a right to a public identity*, no person should force** another to cover or hide their face in public..."
or something like that but wrapped up in legalspeak. And obviously it needs some extra waffle to create loop holes so the legal profession can make complex money generating cases out of it...


*Do we?
** force could be expanded upon of course... And how do you prove it? Did she choose it or did her father force her?

PDN

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Society has decided that such behaviour is unacceptable and the government which reflects the will of society has legislated accordingly. For some reason people seem to believe that democratic governments are distinct from the society they govern and that ohh noze its religion you can't interfere with that.

So if a society decides that atheism or homosexuality is unacceptable, and if the government which reflects the will of society has legislated accordingly, is that OK with you?

I personally find the burkas to be rather unnerving - but the whole point of a secular democratic society is that we tolerate stuff we don't agree with, not that we just tolerate the stuff we like anyway.

Flamed Diving

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

PDN wrote: »

So if a society decides that atheism or homosexuality is unacceptable, and if the government which reflects the will of society has legislated accordingly, is that OK with you?

I personally find the burkas to be rather unnerving - but the whole point of a secular democratic society is that we tolerate stuff we don't agree with, not that we just tolerate the stuff we like anyway.

I nearly there with you, but if people wish to wear cloaking devices than they do pose a difficulty to a society which depends on facial recognition. Not just for security reasons, but also cultural. Furthermore, if you can justify somebody disguising their entire figure because it is their personal preference, then you cannot justify denying peoples right to do the complete opposite. Fair is fair.

--amadeus--

This is sooooo complex an area.

Like others I am quite conflicted about it, but the only thing that I am pretty sure about is that exceptions on other laws or rules should not be made for religious items.

So if as a non-religious male I'm not allowed to wear a balaclava into a bank, even in teh depths of winter why should someone be allowed to wear a burka? Likewise I have an issue with muslim medics refusing to follow hand wash procedures aimed at controlling infection for "modesty" reasons. And yes I think it's wrong for nurses to wear crosses if they are prevented from wearing other jewellery.

But walking down teh street? I don't really think it's any of our business, to be honest.

kiffer

I'm religious and support the ban

People should be allowed to wear what they like, but should not be able to force people to wear identity hiding clothes... I was going to say should not be able to force people to wear clothes but that would stop schools and various jobs having uniforms... And
adding an exception for uniforms would allow schools to have them as a uniform... The question is are any of those 30 women being forced and if so is such forcing covered under existing law?

Zillah

kiffer wrote: »

The question is are any of those 30 women being forced and if so is such forcing covered under existing law?

Its kind of circular. In theory there could be some sort of coercion charges to be laid there if someone is being dominated into living their life in a fashion they disagree with...but if such an individual is oppressed enough to wear the Burka then the concept of telling the police or testifying in court would be entirely alien to them. This is ignoring the fact that prosecuting for applying social pressures to conform to certain clothing standards is absurdly difficult and nebulous.

Hence the law that just came in: If you want to stop the burka being used as a tool of oppression then just ban the burka.

MikeC101

I'm religious and support the ban

Zillah wrote: »

Its kind of circular. In theory there could be some sort of coercion charges to be laid there if someone is being dominated into living their life in a fashion they disagree with...but if such an individual is oppressed enough to wear the Burka then the concept of telling the police or testifying in court would be entirely alien to them. This is ignoring the fact that prosecuting for applying social pressures to conform to certain clothing standards is absurdly difficult and nebulous.

Hence the law that just came in: If you want to stop the burka being used as a tool of oppression then just ban the burka.

My take on this is that if the individual is oppressed to the extent that they will wear a burka against their will, and are afraid of getting help from the authorities, then a ban on wearing a burka will result in them being forced to remain in their home at all times. It won't help with the problem, just keep it out of sight.

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I nearly there with you, but if people wish to wear cloaking devices than they do pose a difficulty to a society which depends on facial recognition. Not just for security reasons, but also cultural. Furthermore, if you can justify somebody disguising their entire figure because it is their personal preference, then you cannot justify denying peoples right to do the complete opposite. Fair is fair.

The cultural thing cuts no ice with me. We should have the freedom to be totally anti-cultural or counter-cultural if we wish (providing we harm no-one else). Anyway, people already wear sunglasses & hoodies that impede facial recognition.

As for security, the answer is simple. You ban the burka from situations where it poses a security risk. You already see notices displayed that forbid anyone entering a bank while wearing a motorcycle helmet. In the same way it would be reasonable to insist that anyone wearing a burka does not enter a bank, or board a plane etc.

MikeC101

I'm religious and support the ban

PDN wrote: »

You ban the burka from situations where it poses a security risk. You already see notices displayed that forbid anyone entering a bank while wearing a motorcycle helmet. In the same way it would be reasonable to insist that anyone wearing a burka does not enter a bank, or board a plane etc.

Somewhat oddly, I was watching a video on youtube by a motorcyclist where he'd just been told by a security guard in Tesco (UK) that he wouldn't be allowed to enter without removing his helmet (which was a flip up model, and he had the front raised - so it basically shows all of the front of your face), and when he pointed out that a Muslim woman in hijab had just walked in in front of him, the security guard said "That's different, that's a religious thing."

Similarly Sikhs don't have to wear helmets on motorcycles, though everyone else is legally obliged to. (Again, in the UK) I think Sikhs are exempt from hard hat requirements on building sites too.

Zillah

MikeC101 wrote: »

My take on this is that if the individual is oppressed to the extent that they will wear a burka against their will, and are afraid of getting help from the authorities, then a ban on wearing a burka will result in them being forced to remain in their home at all times. It won't help with the problem, just keep it out of sight.

Which I commented on in my first post. It is a concern, and I'm still not sure where I stand on this issue. However, I can imagine that even the most conservative Muslim man, living in a Western country that bans the burka, must eventually soften his position. Sheer practicality demands that he's going to get sick of doing the shopping for his wife and daughters, that he's tired of posting letters for them etc.

If you read into the hypocrisy evident in the pro-life movement you'll see that even people with deeply help religious beliefs will allow exceptions when it has a direct and tangible effect on their lives. (I've read tons of anecdotes about campaigners showing up with their daughters for abortions because their child is a special case etc and all the waffle and rationalisations that come with that)

robindch

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Zillah wrote: »

has there been a spate of unsolved crimes perpetrated by Muslim women wearing Burkas in mainland Europe recently that I'm unaware of?

They're not quite unsolved -- rather the opposite really, since some of them made suicide videos -- but amongst many other attacks, Chechen Black Widows took part in the high-profile Nord-Ost hostage crisis which lead to the deaths of well over 100 civilians, as well as the wholly indescribable evil of Beslan, which lead to the deaths of something like two or three times that number of people, mostly women and children. The wiki link lists many more instances, though all of them are confined to Russia rather than mainland Europe.

It's been a couple of years since I last took an internal flight in Russia, but I recall from somewhere that there is a strictly enforced ban on burkas on such flights, and the Russian rumour mill certainly abounds with stories of passengers refusing to board planes if anybody vaguely islamic-looking is flying.

Zillah wrote: »

There are also two crucial practical issues at stake here: [...]

You have missed completely the underlying political dimension to this ongoing saga -- the security and other considerations are trivial in comparison.

The burka debate is all about the assertion of political authority, or in simpler terms, who runs the country. On the one hand, people in Europe are pretty free to wear whatever they want once it doesn't frighten the horses. On the other hand, islamic and other religious leaders have used this freedom to force their client populations, using the usual range of subtle and unsubtle manipulative tactics, to wear exactly what the leaders want. In this way, the freedom to wear something paradoxically (and cleverly) becomes a means to subvert the freedom.

And it's not only the islamics who are doing it. In the USA, the weird Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and their polygamist prophet-leader Warren Jeffs (who "married" a prepubescent girl) also assert strict dress codes, with the same aim in mind of enforcing political control. Though unlike Belgium, and no doubt bearing in mind how close Utah came to having its own civil war over the issue during the early years of the Mormon movement, the USA has not moved to ban such dress codes, or even to enforce its existing ban on polygamy.

Anyhow, when basic freedoms are being denied, it's the unpleasant job of the State to step in an reassert the freedom by banning the class of clothes which religious leaders use to deny the freedom.

Zillah wrote: »

I remain confused on this issue and shall have to think about it. Someone else express strong opinions for once and I'll see if you can convince me.

Be confused no longer. This is a serious political issue regarding the origin and nature of political power and the freedoms that we enjoy in these relatively enlightened times. If the western governments cave in on it, then the unelected, self-serving religious leaders will have won the debate and will no doubt select more freedoms to deny their client populations, and no doubt, others too.

Good on the Belgians, I say.

MikeC101

I'm religious and support the ban

Zillah wrote: »

Which I commented on in my first post. It is a concern, and I'm still not sure where I stand on this issue. However, I can imagine that even the most conservative Muslim man, living in a Western country that bans the burka, must eventually soften his position. Sheer practicality demands that he's going to get sick of doing the shopping for his wife and daughters, that he's tired of posting letters for them etc.

A very valid point! It's amazing how firmly held beliefs can fall by the wayside when they become inconvenient.

I'm conflicted on this too. Much as I hate the notion of the state dictating clothing choices to individuals, it already does to a certain extent (though it's generally only in the area of dictating how little clothing can be worn in public), I could almost be swayed to see it as a necessary evil.

Zillah wrote: »

If you read into the hypocrisy evident in the pro-life movement you'll see that even people with deeply help religious beliefs will allow exceptions when it has a direct and tangible effect on their lives. (I've read tons of anecdotes about campaigners showing up with their daughters for abortions because their child is a special case etc and all the waffle and rationalisations that come with that)

I'm completely unsurprised by this - hypocrisy has always been a virtue of the "holier than thou" types who would dictate morals to others.

Darlughda

I think that the burka thing is a feminist issue that should be tackled by the women who hold comfortable well paid jobs as women's studies professors/lecturers and academics.

Dades

I don't think a ban is "right" per se, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't happy with some unnecessary measure that stems Islamification.

There. I've said it.

robindch

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

--amadeus-- wrote: »

And yes I think it's wrong for nurses to wear crosses if they are prevented from wearing other jewellery.

That story was spun quite well by the usual suspects. The nurse concerned was allowed to wear her cross inside her clothes, or pinned to her uniform. However, she turned down these offers and demanded that she be allowed to wear it in on a chain around her neck instead. The administrators were reasonably and rightly concerned that a neck-chain would be liable to be yanked by confused patients, so they denied her request, she bleated "Discrimination!", refused to back down, went to court and ultimately lost her case quite recently.

Splendour

AFAIK, it is not stated anywhere in the Koran that women should wear Burkas. I believe they are told to dress modestly and cover their heads and personally I don't have a problem with that and I imagine most people have similar feelings about this.
If religion can't be used as an excuse to wear a burka, then Muslims will have to give a good reason why some of their women want (or are forced) to wear a burka.

Stercus Accidit

I'm religious and support the ban

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

This is more about normalising Muslims into European society.
I suggest you try going shopping with a paper bag on your head and see how you fair.
All societies impose their morals through their laws, but perhaps you feel religions should have a special place and be held above such concerns.

LOL

Many muslims want to wear the burka, many don't I'm sure, but imposing a blanket ban on a garment is certainly not putting religion in a special place as you put it.

Will people be allowed wear one at home? What about turbans, poor aul sheiks, not conforming with our catholic doctrine. Ireland, which has such a good history with legislation based on religious views, should stamp out this oppressive headwear altogether.

kiffer

I'm religious and support the ban

stupidly obvious statement:
In order to ban the burka you have to define what you're banning...
If you ban all garments that obscure the face then all visors will have to be clear...
If you ban too specific a garment then it's pointless as they'll just have to wear a different style of face covering garb.

Daftendirekt

I'm religious and support the ban

The burka debate is all about the assertion of political authority, or in simpler terms, who runs the country. On the one hand, people in Europe are pretty free to wear whatever they want once it doesn't frighten the horses. On the other hand, islamic and other religious leaders have used this freedom to force their client populations, using the usual range of subtle and unsubtle manipulative tactics, to wear exactly what the leaders want. In this way, the freedom to wear something paradoxically (and cleverly) becomes a means to subvert the freedom.

Anyhow, when basic freedoms are being denied, it's the unpleasant job of the State to step in an reassert the freedom by banning the class of clothes which religious leaders use to deny the freedom.

But it isn't the state's job to protect people from their own gullibility. People should be free to follow whatever ideology they want, even if it is an oppressive and bigoted one. The basic freedom in this case is the freedom to choose your religion, not the freedom to go against the dress code of a club you yourself have chosen to join.*

Also, the burka is just a symbol. Banning the burka will not ease the oppression of women who've been conned into a religion that forces them to cover their faces (although AFAIK this isn't actually the case in Islam) and may actually be counter productive if these women are only allowed to set foot outside their homes when covered. The religion itself is at the heart of this oppression, but I hope nobody thinks it'd be a good idea to go down the road of banning religions.


*I am of course talking about women who are Muslim by choice here. I think the issue of women being forced to wear the burka is something of a red herring, since this is in the realm domestic abuse and should be dealt with under domestic abuse laws.

Zillah

Daftendirekt wrote: »

*I am of course talking about women who are Muslim by choice here. I think the issue of women being forced to wear the burka is something of a red herring, since this is in the realm domestic abuse and should be dealt with under domestic abuse laws.

As I already discussed, trying to prosecute a man for putting social pressure on a woman to dress a certain way is entirely unfeasible. If it even counts as some form of coercion, there is no way in hell that a woman under their thumb would testify against them.

Einhard

I'm religious and support the ban

Does dictating to someone what they can and cannot wear not go against the aims of "liberating" women?

Do Gooder: You can take off your burqa now, you've been liberated from religiously inspired male tyranny.

Muslim Gal: Er, I quite like wearing my burqa actually. Thanks for your concern but I'm capable of dressing yourself.

Do Gooder: 'Fraid not. You're oppressed and so delusional you don't even know you're being oppressed. Therefore, it's up to me to make such decisions for you. You can thank me later.

Muslim Gal: Feck this, if I wanted to be patronised, and talked down to I'd have stayed in Yemen.

Rev Hellfire

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

PDN wrote: »

So if a society decides that atheism or homosexuality is unacceptable, and if the government which reflects the will of society has legislated accordingly, is that OK with you?

Clearly there are some things enshrined in our laws I find disagreeable with or others do.
But I like others should adhere to the laws. But unlike those of a religion I can at least seek to sway my follow citizens to change their minds and repeal/invoke legislature which conforms to my view.

PDN wrote: »

but the whole point of a secular democratic society is that we tolerate stuff we don't agree with, not that we just tolerate the stuff we like anyway.

Actually no, A secular democracy is one which adheres to democratic principles and does not assign specific privileges to religion.
Your proposition is one where you have a democratic vote and then ignore the majority :rolleyes:

Rev Hellfire

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Many muslims want to wear the burka, many don't I'm sure, but imposing a blanket ban on a garment is certainly not putting religion in a special place as you put it.

I said the reverse, its because of religion having a 'special' place that a woman in a burka can walk around obscured in public spaces, but for example you couldn't since you're not doing it for religious reasons.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Will people be allowed wear one at home? What about turbans, poor aul sheiks, not conforming with our catholic doctrine. Ireland, which has such a good history with legislation based on religious views, should stamp out this oppressive headwear altogether.

Its about public spaces.
Nor is it a law that removes religious garb, the hi-jab for example is not affected. If you want to wear just a pillow case on your head and run around your house knock yourself out, just don't be surprised if society 'oppresses' you when you try to do it outside on the street.

old_aussie

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Laws are usually passed by people who are elected by a majority vote.

If the majority of people want the burka banned(except in the muslims home) then make is so number 1.

majority rules apply in public.

so a minority want to run around nude in public, just cause it's a democracy doesn't mean they can do it.

Shenshen

I'm religious and support the ban

I have to admit I'm in two minds about that.
In my view, nobody should be allowed or able to dictate anybody how they want to dress.
However, most countries unfortunately still have legislation regulating a minimum of clothing for either sex. So in that vein, imposing regulation for a permitted maximum doesn't seem that far out.

Personally, I'd love to see both done away with. If people want to walk around dressed as black wardrobes or stark naked should really be entirely up to them.

Shenshen

I'm religious and support the ban

old_aussie wrote: »

Laws are usually passed by people who are elected by a majority vote.

If the majority of people want the burka banned(except in the muslims home) then make is so number 1.

majority rules apply in public.

so a minority want to run around nude in public, just cause it's a democracy doesn't mean they can do it.

I always feel very uneasy when democracy is cited on equality matters.... rights should be the same for everybody, regardless if they're minority or majority. And the right to dress as you see fit should really apply to all, in my view.

Shenshen

I'm religious and support the ban

kiffer wrote: »

People should be allowed to wear what they like, but should not be able to force people to wear identity hiding clothes... I was going to say should not be able to force people to wear clothes but that would stop schools and various jobs having uniforms... And
adding an exception for uniforms would allow schools to have them as a uniform... The question is are any of those 30 women being forced and if so is such forcing covered under existing law?

Is there any law that forced you to be indentifiable at all times when in public?
Even German law which is rather harsh on the subject only forced you to not cover your face whne you are engaging in any form of public political demonstration...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Truley

I'm religious and support the ban

I think mini skirts should be banned. How do you know women aren't being forced to wear them? In fact I would wager there are alot more women in this country being coerced into wearing mini skirts than burkas.

Splendour

Truley wrote: »

I think mini skirts should be banned. How do you know women aren't being forced to wear them? In fact I would wager there are alot more women in this country being coerced into wearing mini skirts than burkas.

Actually, you may have a point there Truley although I don't think coercion is the right word, I think brainwashing might be more approppriate.

Truley

I'm religious and support the ban

Splendour wrote: »

Actually, you may have a point there Truley although I don't think coercion is the right word, I think brainwashing might be more approppriate.

Ah but how do you know that? I bet lots of women are being forced into it, prostitutes, or women with abusive partners? Best to ban it just in case.

robindch

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Daftendirekt wrote: »

But it isn't the state's job to protect people from their own gullibility. People should be free to follow whatever ideology they want, even if it is an oppressive and bigoted one.

Yes, up to a point that's true. In essence, it's the classic political dilemma about how much one polity can tolerate a newer, competing one which rejects, in certain areas at least, the authority of the first polity.

To look at it in starker terms, what about this guy? Yes, his legal system rightly permits him to believe what he wants, but he actually believes that his religious beliefs outrank the legal system that provides him the freedom to believe what he wants in the first place.

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Also, the burka is just a symbol.

The burka isn't "just a symbol", it's a powerful medium in which to deliver a firm message of political identity and loyalty, and the loyalty is signals is typically not to the state, at least in western Europe anyway. And that's a problem that the state must, unfortunately, address sooner or later.

Mark Hamill

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

robindch wrote: »

The burka isn't "just a symbol", it's a powerful medium in which to deliver a firm message of political identity and loyalty, and the loyalty is signals is typically not to the state, at least in western Europe anyway. And that's a problem that the state must, unfortunately, address sooner or later.

Just a thought, but what about a state sanctioned burka then? One whose shape and colour is designed by the state (maybe a flag of the nation you live in?), but significantly different from the islamic one?
If the women who want to wear the burka are doing it for purely modesty reasons, how it looks should be entirely irrelevent and by having the design state chosen, it may back up the unconscious idea that, ultimately approval of the burka is state sanctioned, not religion.
Maybe best of both worlds, maybe I've forgotten something very important?