Burka ban

LorMal

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

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, and yours is but another view from your perspective, with no weight behind it whatsoever -





That is your view, predicated on the assertion that the burqa is a manifestation of this supposed oppression. We could ascribe that same assertion to anything in Western society that is a "manifestation of women being the possession of men, in total subservience", and it wouldn't take much imagination to do it.

Or, we could, if we wanted, acknowledge that other people have different cultures, customs, beliefs and traditions that they should be allowed to practice, as our laws already allow for and protect.

I have yet to hear any compelling reason to ban women from wearing the burqa because those arguing for the ban view the burqa as a symbol of oppression. Like I said - the very notion contradicts itself, and all other reasons such as security concerns and social interaction have already been demonstrated to be without any solid foundation given that we already practice many of these things already in our society.

I have not posited security concerns or social interaction as reasons. Nor are my reasons anti - Islamic as the Burka is not required by Islam (it is custom/tradition of some Muslims only).
My reason is based on the thought process behind the Burka. Why are woman covered completely so that only their eyes can be seen?

One eyed Jack

LorMal wrote: »

Again, it is what it represents.

But it doesn't represent what you claim it represents to you, nor is it intended to. By your standard of banning things that are a representation of the oppression of women, we would have to ban quite a few more articles of clothing that are a representation of the oppression of women (for their own benefit of course).

Now while I personally might like to ponder on the outcome of banning women from wearing bras (for their own good of course), on the basis that they are a restrictive article of clothing that represents the oppression of women, I'm not sure the idea would have much... support, given that here in the West, the bra also serves a number of various other purposes such as protecting women's modesty.

LorMal

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

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But it doesn't represent what you claim it represents to you, nor is it intended to. By your standard of banning things that are a representation of the oppression of women, we would have to ban quite a few more articles of clothing that are a representation of the oppression of women (for their own benefit of course).

Now while I personally might like to ponder on the outcome of banning women from wearing bras (for their own good of course), on the basis that they are a restrictive article of clothing that represents the oppression of women, I'm not sure the idea would have much... support, given that here in the West, the bra also serves a number of various other purposes such as protecting women's modesty.

With that I exit. Good luck!

One eyed Jack

LorMal wrote: »

I have not posited security concerns or social interaction as reasons. Nor are my reasons anti - Islamic as the Burka is not required by Islam (it is custom/tradition of some Muslims only).
My reason is based on the thought process behind the Burka. Why are woman covered completely so that only their eyes can be seen?

To protect their modesty. They just go that one step further than we do here in the West is all. How is banning the burqa actually helping women who want to wear it? Is enforcing a ban for those women not equally as oppressive as your claim?

wokingvoter

I'm religious and do not support the ban

I think if a woman takes a job dealing with the public face to face, that a burqha is wholly inappropriate
But on your own time? Knock yourself out
Symbol of oppression of women line is all stuff and nonsense. Typical modern feminist claptrap
Hell there's days I'm so lazy about my appearance id love a chance to throw on a burqha myself

silverharp

wokingvoter wrote: »

I think if a woman takes a job dealing with the public face to face, that a burqha is wholly inappropriate
But on your own time? Knock yourself out
Symbol of oppression of women line is all stuff and nonsense. Typical modern feminist claptrap
Hell there's days I'm so lazy about my appearance id love a chance to throw on a burqha myself

nobody calls you a whore or threatens to kill you if you dont wear one though

here is a piece from Austrian tv and they are only talking about the hijab.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-IBeGXkSMI

robindch

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

Absolam wrote: »

The burka is a piece of cloth. Okay with that?

Absolam - you've been warned about borderline trolling before.

Contribute to the debate or leave.

jackofalltrades

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

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Should that not be their choice as to whether they want to communicate with other people, in whatever way they choose to communicate with other people?

But that's a two way street.
What if people who don't find wearing the the Burqa to be acceptable, started to ignore women who wore it, would you be OK with that?

You might like to read this -

http://www.iisna.com/articles/pamphlets/the-burqa-and-niqab-uncovering-the-facts/

(or you might not, as it contradicts your perspective)

What particular aspects of this article do you find noteworthy?

Like I said - the very notion contradicts itself, and all other reasons such as security concerns and social interaction have already been demonstrated to be without any solid foundation given that we already practice many of these things already in our society.

Where has this been demonstrated?

One eyed Jack

jackofalltrades wrote: »

But that's a two way street.
What if people who don't find wearing the the Burqa to be acceptable, started to ignore women who wore it, would you be OK with that?

I don't get your point? I ignore people all the time, people ignore me all the time. I pay no attention to people all the time, so if you mean encouraging people to mind their own business when other people are not interfering with them, I'd be all for it. Women who wear the burqa, while I often meet them around, they're more interested in keeping to themselves and not interfering with anyone. If people who don't find the burqa acceptable want to ignore women who wear it, I don't think they'd have a problem with that. I certainly wouldn't.

What particular aspects of this article do you find noteworthy?

All of it is particularly noteworthy as it offers a very different perspective to the Lormal's perspective that they were trying to put forward. I didn't expect anyone to offer any comment on it, and anyone is free to ignore it, but I think it offers an interesting perspective, not least because it contradicts some of the arguments being put forward here.

Where has this been demonstrated?

In the last couple of pages there have been scenarios put forward by people objecting to the wearing of the burqa, but there is no legislation already exists which makes any specific item of clothing or adornment (be it of religious, cultural significance or otherwise) from being worn by anyone in Ireland. If you want to wear a balaclava, fire away, there is no current legislation prohibiting anyone from wearing a balaclava. If you want to wear a burqa, go right ahead, and carrying a bomb under there is unlikely to be my default assumption.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

LorMal wrote: »

Again, it is what it represents.

But it is okay with you that it is a piece of cloth? We may as well establish first principles; in that everyone can agree that it is a piece of cloth, yes?

Because what people feel it represents is going to differ from person to person. For people who have never come across it, or have no context for it, it represents nothing at all; it has no intrinsic value in that regard.
For some people it represents an expression of their faith; when they wear it they feel closer to God.
For some people it represents oppression.
What it represents (to some people) may be something reprehensible; in which case deal with what is reprehensible. Oppression doesn't go away just because you can't see someone wearing it any more.

jackofalltrades

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

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't get your point? I ignore people all the time, people ignore me all the time. I pay no attention to people all the time, so if you mean encouraging people to mind their own business when other people are not interfering with them, I'd be all for it. Women who wear the burqa, while I often meet them around, they're more interested in keeping to themselves and not interfering with anyone. If people who don't find the burqa acceptable want to ignore women who wear it, I don't think they'd have a problem with that. I certainly wouldn't.

Yeah I can clarify my point.
My point is largely centered on the idea of not communicating and disengaging working both ways.
Would yourself and others support non-Burqa wearers not communicating with Burqa wearers.
And if so, would this support still be there if it started to have a major impact on the Burqa wearer?

In the last couple of pages there have been scenarios put forward by people objecting to the wearing of the burqa, but there is no legislation already exists which makes any specific item of clothing or adornment (be it of religious, cultural significance or otherwise) from being worn by anyone in Ireland. If you want to wear a balaclava, fire away, there is no current legislation prohibiting anyone from wearing a balaclava. If you want to wear a burqa, go right ahead, and carrying a bomb under there is unlikely to be my default assumption.

Yes but I'm looking for you to support your claim that "all other reasons such as security concerns and social interaction have already been demonstrated to be without any solid foundation".
Because I don't think that they've been found to not have a solid foundation.
It would be hard to argue against the Burqa being a hindrance to social interaction.

One eyed Jack

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Yeah I can clarify my point.
My point is largely centered on the idea of not communicating and disengaging working both ways.
Would yourself and others support non-Burqa wearers not communicating with Burqa wearers.
And if so, would this support still be there if it started to have a major impact on the Burqa wearer?

But burqa wearers don't normally communicate with anyone outside their own community anyway. My sister for instance who I mentioned earlier is a convert to Islam, doesn't make a habit of talking to strangers anyway. My friends are the same - if people do not want to communicate with them because they're wearing the burqa, then who is really the one with the problem there? Certainly not the women who choose to wear the burqa.

I don't understand - if you're trying to make an argument banning women from wearing the burqa because you feel it impedes their ability to communicate with you, or your ability to communicate with them, it absolutely and categorically doesn't!! You're choosing not to communicate with them, or they're choosing not to communicate with you. It's that simple, and as Absalom alluded to - banning women from wearing the burqa won't change that reality.

Banning women from wearing the burqa when they want to wear the burqa would have a profound negative effect on these women, and any suggestions that their lives would be improved by banning them from wearing the burqa, are misguided at best.

Yes but I'm looking for you to support your claim that "all other reasons such as security concerns and social interaction have already been demonstrated to be without any solid foundation".
Because I don't think that they've been found to not have a solid foundation.

Of course they have. How seriously should I be expected to take arguments like "if I can't wear a balaclava, they shouldn't be allowed wear the burqa", or "they could be male suicide bombers", which ignores the fact that male suicide bombers usually carry back-packs so that they blend in, not wearing burqas so they stand out.

It would be hard to argue against the Burqa being a hindrance to social interaction.

A hindrance to social interaction for whom exactly? A hindrance to social interaction with whom? Would you expect that Muslim men should be forced by law to shake the hands of non-Muslim men when they meet them? The burqa in no way prevents women from socially interacting with people who they interact with, nor does it prevent people from interacting with them.

The mobile phone you have in your pocket is a hindrance to social interaction - ban those too? Ban anything that is a hindrance to social interaction? There have to be reasonable limits on infringing upon people's personal and fundamental rights, and banning the wearing of the burqa is over-reaching to infringe on people's personal and fundamental rights for no justifiable reason IMO, and would actually see women ostracised from their own communities, and unable to fit in with other communities who will still not accept them.

It's happened throughout history when well-meaning but unfortunately ill-informed people have tried to impose their will on other cultures.

It. just. doesn't. work.

Kiwi in IE

I'm religious and support the ban

I will admit I don't like burqas and what I feel that they represent. On the other hand a Muslim woman might not like my jeans or bikini and what she feels they represent either. I would not take too kindly at all to them attempting to outlaw my clothing choices on the basis that they don't like them though.

Western countries who outlaw Burqas, or any other form of traditional/cultural garments are simply stooping to the exact same level as Islamic countries who arrest women for wearing certain types of western clothing. Do we really want to be like that?

looksee

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

This is a very complex argument and I really don't identify with much of it. Years ago women would not go to church without a hat, and the people who muttered about someone with their head uncovered were the other women. I have no idea why women wear burqas - some do it because they want to, some because they are coerced, some because 'that's what you do' (probably the most likely reason, but I don't know).

I have told the story here before of being in a shopping center in England and finding that all the dozen or so females I saw as I went in were all wearing burqas, a dozen pairs of expressionless eyes looked at me and I found it uncomfortable. I don't care whether that was a reasonable reaction, it was how I felt.

A couple of months ago I was in Debenhams in Waterford and out of the corner of my eye I could see there was someone beside me wearing something light brown. In the normal course of maneuvering I turned with a smile to acknowledge the person beside me - and again found myself looking at a pair of eyes - though in this case they were looking over a light coloured scarf as part of a less oppressive and rather attractive long dress. I had no idea whether she was smiling back at me or looking offended. Though she did then speak and say something courteous.

This is the level of interaction that affects me personally in relation to the burqa. If I choose to go to a Muslim country I can expect to find things a little different and unfamiliar. That is one of the reasons for travelling. Here though, while I can cope with difference, I do not feel that I should have to deal with communicating, even casually, with what are essentially blank expressions.

Yes I know people are going to say 'what about this situation, what about that person's problems'. There are exceptions to every situation. I rather think that if I met someone in a shopping center wearing a full face bike helmet I would feel much the same, it doesn't happen though because people take them off. In fact most people wearing opaque sunglasses would remove them if they were conversing with you. It is what people in western countries regard as courtesy.

If I went to Japan I would check up on basic courtesies before I went, and co-operate. If I were in Scandinavia I would take care not to stand too close to people as they apparently prefer to have more personal space. If I were in Muslim countries I would certainly cover my arms and head as necessary. I did live in an African country where women were expected to cover their normal dress with a long wrap around sarong, and I did. I am all in favour of cultural differences, I just want to be able to communicate with an actual face when I fleetingly engage with someone in the street as I pass them.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

I don't think I'd be terribly comfortable being surrounded by a crowd of burqa clad women, but then I'm pretty sure comfortable wouldn't describe how I'd feel being surrounded by a crowd of naked women either; I'd certainly have some difficulty engaging in a normal social interaction with either. I don't feel I should legislate against either group expressing themselves on account of my discomfort though.
Yes, looking at other peoples faces, particularly their eyes, when conversing is something that is courteous is western culture, but we don't legislate for other courtesies; the English don't legally require handshakes, the French don't legally require bises, the Irish don't legally require cups of tea.
If someone passes me in a shopping center wearing a motorcycle helmet I won't be offended; if they engage me in a lengthy conversation without opening it I might, but I don't see that as a reason to legally prohibit them wearing one as a result. The offense I take is my problem; I'm not egocentric enough to imagine they're trying to give offense.

Nodin

I'm religious and support the ban

LorMal wrote: »

Again, it is what it represents.

You mean what it represents to you.

robindch

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

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Western countries who outlaw Burqas, or any other form of traditional/cultural garments are simply stooping to the exact same level as Islamic countries who arrest women for wearing certain types of western clothing. Do we really want to be like that?

It's not a black and white issue - there are degrees of coercion on both sides. Within groups where islam is the dominant religion, there is strong pressure (financial, social, physical) to wear the burka, suggesting that the decision to wear it is not free and it's not unencumbered, as all decisions should be.

In the absence of a free decision, the easiest thing to do is for the state to ban the wearing of the burka on state property. It's not an idea solution and there will be some people who will suffer on account of it - either being confined to home, or having made a genuinely free and unencumbered choice to wear it, will simply not want to go outside. However, I believe those two groups are tiny in comparison to the far greater number of women whose lives will be made just a little bit more free by the state stepping in to guarantee their right to wear in public what they want to, not what they are forced to.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

In the absence of a free decision, the easiest thing to do is for the state to ban the wearing of the burka on state property. It's not an idea solution and there will be some people who will suffer on account of it - either being confined to home, or having made a genuinely free and unencumbered choice to wear it, will simply not want to go outside. However, I believe those two groups are tiny in comparison to the far greater number of women whose lives will be made just a little bit more free by the state stepping in to guarantee their right to wear in public what they want to, not what they are forced to.

Wait a sec... how is the State stepping in to guarantee their right to wear in public what they want to, when it's banning them from wearing what they want to wear in public? Surely, by banning what they want to wear it is forcing them to wear something else (if they want to go out in public). I don't see how swapping the possibility that some women are being denied the freedom to choose what they wear for the certainty that women are being denied the freedom to choose what they wear is a net improvement in freedom. Nor yet, classing public spaces as 'State property', in fairness.
Perhaps a more supportive State involvement that would enable women (at least such women as may be coerced) to make a free decision would yield more positive results than swapping one oppressor for another; certainly it wouldn't be the easiest thing to do, but it would be a lot closer to a good thing to do.

Kiwi in IE

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

It's not a black and white issue - there are degrees of coercion on both sides. Within groups where islam is the dominant religion, there is strong pressure (financial, social, physical) to wear the burka, suggesting that the decision to wear it is not free and it's not unencumbered, as all decisions should be.

In the absence of a free decision, the easiest thing to do is for the state to ban the wearing of the burka on state property. It's not an idea solution and there will be some people who will suffer on account of it - either being confined to home, or having made a genuinely free and unencumbered choice to wear it, will simply not want to go outside. However, I believe those two groups are tiny in comparison to the far greater number of women whose lives will be made just a little bit more free by the state stepping in to guarantee their right to wear in public what they want to, not what they are forced to.

I can't see this issue from the perspective that, because women are possibly being coerced by their families to wear a particular garment, that it's right for the state to step in and ban that garment. I'm not a fan of burqas, misogyny or religion in general for that matter, but I cannot get my head around this perspective no matter how hard I try. In the above scenario where women are coerced and deprived of self determination, they are being abused by their spouse/parents/family, and to me that is the issue, as opposed to the garment. Banning a garment is not going to do anything at all to stop this abuse.

looksee

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

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think I'd be terribly comfortable being surrounded by a crowd of burqa clad women, but then I'm pretty sure comfortable wouldn't describe how I'd feel being surrounded by a crowd of naked women either; I'd certainly have some difficulty engaging in a normal social interaction with either. I don't feel I should legislate against either group expressing themselves on account of my discomfort though.
Yes, looking at other peoples faces, particularly their eyes, when conversing is something that is courteous is western culture, but we don't legislate for other courtesies; the English don't legally require handshakes, the French don't legally require bises, the Irish don't legally require cups of tea.
If someone passes me in a shopping center wearing a motorcycle helmet I won't be offended; if they engage me in a lengthy conversation without opening it I might, but I don't see that as a reason to legally prohibit them wearing one as a result. The offense I take is my problem; I'm not egocentric enough to imagine they're trying to give offense.

What do naked women have to do with anything? Except that a man or woman exhibiting bits of themselves that are more usually kept covered certainly could be legislated against, we have indecency laws. That is definitely subjective.

Then we are back to this word 'offence', what does it mean? I didn't mention being offended, I simply said that I was uncomfortable, and local courtesy required that people did not cover their face.

Any time I see a completely veiled woman accompanied by a western-dressed man I can't help feeling that he is making a rude gesture towards the country he has chosen to live in.

Maybe that doesn't entirely make sense, but I have just realised that in fact I don't see completely veiled women as 'people' immediately. I have to think about it. In much the same way that if you see someone wearing a complete rabbit costume in a parade you do not immediately see a person, you see a character.

The halloween ghost analogy earlier is actually quite right - the person under the sheet does not want you to see a person, they are hoping you will 'see' a ghost.

Think that through, why would a woman wish to be a non-person? And then ask, do we want to bring into Ireland those reasons and attitudes to society into Ireland?

silverharp

looksee wrote: »

What do naked women have to do with anything? Except that a man or woman exhibiting bits of themselves that are more usually kept covered certainly could be legislated against, we have indecency laws. That is definitely subjective.

Then we are back to this word 'offence', what does it mean? I didn't mention being offended, I simply said that I was uncomfortable, and local courtesy required that people did not cover their face.

Any time I see a completely veiled woman accompanied by a western-dressed man I can't help feeling that he is making a rude gesture towards the country he has chosen to live in.

Maybe that doesn't entirely make sense, but I have just realised that in fact I don't see completely veiled women as 'people' immediately. I have to think about it. In much the same way that if you see someone wearing a complete rabbit costume in a parade you do not immediately see a person, you see a character.

The halloween ghost analogy earlier is actually quite right - the person under the sheet does not want you to see a person, they are hoping you will 'see' a ghost.

Think that through, why would a woman wish to be a non-person? And then ask, do we want to bring into Ireland those reasons and attitudes to society into Ireland?

I get that, there are two muslim kids on my son's soccer team and their mothers are there about half the time. After 3 years I couldnt even tell you which is which even though the dads are chatty enough.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

looksee wrote: »

What do naked women have to do with anything? Except that a man or woman exhibiting bits of themselves that are more usually kept covered certainly could be legislated against, we have indecency laws. That is definitely subjective.

Well, it compares a situation where you have said you'd feel uncomfortable with the way people are dressed to a situation where I'd feel uncomfortable with the way people are (un)dressed, and our responses to that discomfort.

looksee wrote: »

Then we are back to this word 'offence', what does it mean? I didn't mention being offended, I simply said that I was uncomfortable, and local courtesy required that people did not cover their face.

Well, I don't know about back to; I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who's mentioned it on the thread in the last eight months or so?
Offense means something that outrages the moral or physical senses, that causes a person to be hurt, angry, or upset. People can give offense, by deliberately choosing to cause a person to be hurt, angry or upset. People can take offense, by deliberately choosing to be hurt, angry or upset.

looksee wrote: »

Any time I see a completely veiled woman accompanied by a western-dressed man I can't help feeling that he is making a rude gesture towards the country he has chosen to live in.

And yet the only basis you have for this feeling is that he is in the company of someone wearing a veil. Can you imagine how many possible scenarios there are involving their being there together for you to see that don't require him to be making a rude gesture towards the country he has chosen to live in?

looksee wrote: »

Maybe that doesn't entirely make sense, but I have just realised that in fact I don't see completely veiled women as 'people' immediately. I have to think about it. In much the same way that if you see someone wearing a complete rabbit costume in a parade you do not immediately see a person, you see a character.

That's probably not really their fault though; nor should they feel obliged to correct it?

looksee wrote: »

The halloween ghost analogy earlier is actually quite right - the person under the sheet does not want you to see a person, they are hoping you will 'see' a ghost.

Is there any reason to think the analogy holds true; do you think a person wearing a burqa wants you not to see her as a person?

looksee wrote: »

Think that through, why would a woman wish to be a non-person? And then ask, do we want to bring into Ireland those reasons and attitudes to society into Ireland?

I suspect she wouldn't want to be a non-person; you simply extrapolated the idea she might from your own perception of Halloween costumes without ever considering anything about how she actually feels. Do we really want to have in Ireland the kind of judgmental attitude that makes a determination about a person purely based on a limited perception of how they dress, without any reference at all to how they feel about it?

robindch

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

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

[...]I cannot get my head around this perspective no matter how hard I try [...]

This seems to be the case for some people - I'm not sure why.

Is it that you equate the ban on one side with the ban on the other? And believe therefore that both inhibit freedom equally?

Kiwi in IE

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

This seems to be the case for some people - I'm not sure why.

Is it that you equate the ban on one side with the ban on the other? And believe therefore that both inhibit freedom equally?

I believe that the state interfering in people's personal clothing choices is definitely inhibiting freedom. I completely accept that some women are coerced into wearing burqas by family, against their wishes. However there are also many women who choose to wear burqas. Their choices obviously are the result of religious indoctrination, but lots of people's personal choices are the result of religious indoctrination. Personally I find it hard to believe that anyone would freely choose to wear a burqa, but I also find it hard to believe that sane, sensible people would freely choose to dress their small children up in bridal attire and have them confess their 'sins' to a priest, but they do. Just as sane, sensible women choose to wear burqas.

Women who are being coerced and denied self determination by their families are being abused. I think we can all agree on that. But in banning burqas, is the state not acting in a similar manner by denying the right to religious freedom of women who choose to wear them. There are women who because of their religious beliefs, will choose to isolate in their houses rather than go out in public without a burqa. Abuse by fathers/mothers/husbands/in laws must be addressed for what it is, and is not solved by the state acting in a similar manner. We all have indirect responsibility for the actions of the state and I don't want to be in any way responsible, even indirectly, for women feeling confined to their houses because our laws are denying their right to religious freedom.

jackofalltrades

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

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But burqa wearers don't normally communicate with anyone outside their own community anyway.....

Which is really bad for society.
It's dis-integration.
Which is even worse with a community that has issues with extremism.

My sister for instance who I mentioned earlier is a convert to Islam, doesn't make a habit of talking to strangers anyway....by banning them from wearing the burqa, are misguided at best.

You're not addressing the point.
Would you be happy with people refusing to communicate with Burqa wearers, to the extend that it started having a major impact on the life of the Burqa wearer?

Of course they have. How seriously should I be expected to take arguments like "if I can't wear a balaclava, they shouldn't be allowed wear the burqa", or "they could be male suicide bombers", which ignores the fact that male suicide bombers usually carry back-packs so that they blend in, not wearing burqas so they stand out.

The fact that men have dressed in Burqas to carry out terrorist attacks disproves the "they'd stand out" theory.

A hindrance to social interaction for whom exactly?.....
It. just. doesn't. work.

You're overthinking it.
If you can't see someones faces/eyes, their body language is seriously obscured and their talking through a piece of material, it's a hindrance to social interaction.
That's what I'm arguing.
You seem to be claiming that this concern is without foundation.

jackofalltrades

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

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I can't see this issue from the perspective that, because women are possibly being coerced by their families to wear a particular garment, that it's right for the state to step in and ban that garment. I'm not a fan of burqas, misogyny or religion in general for that matter, but I cannot get my head around this perspective no matter how hard I try. In the above scenario where women are coerced and deprived of self determination, they are being abused by their spouse/parents/family, and to me that is the issue, as opposed to the garment. Banning a garment is not going to do anything at all to stop this abuse.

Banning the Burqa will create a ceiling on the degree to which a family member can coerce another family member, in regards to what they wear.
It also stops women from feeling pressure to wear it due to other women wearing it.
It will also help these women to feel less isolated from society.
So it won't stop the abuse, but it should limit its power.

We all have indirect responsibility for the actions of the state and I don't want to be in any way responsible, even indirectly, for women feeling confined to their houses because our laws are denying their right to religious freedom.

I'd want to see some kind of proof that wearing the Burqa is specifically mandated in their religion.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Banning the Burqa will create a ceiling on the degree to which a family member can coerce another family member, in regards to what they wear.

Not really; it only prevents them from coercing them to wear it in public. They can still coerce them to wear it in private, and further coerce them not to go out in public because they're not allowed to wear it. As far as preventing coercion goes, it's a non starter; it actually has the potential to leave women worse off (if they were badly off in the first place). Taking action against coercion; now that's something that might be positive.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It also stops women from feeling pressure to wear it due to other women wearing it.

As above, with the added observation; women and men are already subject to peer pressure regarding how they dress. If it's peer pressure you're worried about, why would we legislate for this instance of peer pressure and not others?

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It will also help these women to feel less isolated from society. So it won't stop the abuse, but it should limit its power.

As far as I can see it's likely to make women who are coerced more isolated from society, and further, to now isolate from society women who choose to wear a burqa. I can't see that as limiting the power of abuse, to be honest.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I'd want to see some kind of proof that wearing the Burqa is specifically mandated in their religion.

Why does it have to be mandated in their religion for prohibiting it to be a limit on their religious freedom? A Catholic isn't obliged to attend Mass daily, but prohibiting them from doing so limits their religious freedom. A Buddhist isn't obliged to chant, but prohibiting them from doing so limits their religious freedom.
Would you be happy to have your civil liberties limited to only those that are specifically mandated by your personal belief system?

Kiwi in IE

I'm religious and support the ban

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It also stops women from feeling pressure to wear it due to other women wearing it.

Should we ban wearing make up, shaving legs, dying hair, designer clothes etc, in case some women feel pressured to wear/do these things due to other women wearing/doing these things?

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It will also help these women to feel less isolated from society.

It's actually quite likely to make them feel more isolated from society, if they truly believe they are obliged to wear a burqa and it's illegal to do so, there is a risk they may completely isolate in their house.

Kiwi in IE

I'm religious and support the ban

What has gone wrong here Absolam? We have been in agreement for a few pages now. This is not normal! It appears that we are also both deviating from our usual positions, in order to achieve our agreement, you are defending personal liberty and I am defending religious practice

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Oh I've always been very pro personal liberty, right up to the point where it interferes with someone else's personal liberty