Burka ban

Kiwi in IE

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

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

I totally agree, but I suspect that our understandings of the appropriate application of the term 'someone' differ slightly.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I totally agree, but I suspect that our understandings of the appropriate application of the term 'someone' differ slightly.

Aye, there's the rub... as the odd Prince has been known to say.

looksee

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

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.

That is the whole point of the discussion - they are specifically not worn in private! And as to taking action against coercion, who decides what is coercion and how do you take action against it? Coercion happens in many homes, over many different issues.

Just to be pedantic for a moment, the garment we are discussing, the burqa, is the full face (including the eyes) veil - there really are not too many of them around. More common is the Niqab, which is similar but the eyes are visible, which is not much of an improvement on the burqa and would possibly be the alternative if the burqa was banned. If people choose to wear a black tent that is their business. The only way it affects the rest of us is when the face is covered. There is no religious reason for this and no reason why it should be accommodated. If I went into my local bank with a cloth over my head I would very quickly find security arguing with me. Why should it be different because the cloth is black and part of an identifiable garment?

My objection would be to both the burqa and the niqab, but after that, if women wish to wear a hijab - a hijab does not cover the face - that is their business.

I'm religious and support the ban

The issue is applying the logic fairly.

You are suggesting that any garb, garment, costume or clothing that covers one's face ought to be banned from public.
Given that the source of distress / foundations of the argument against is

The only way it affects the rest of us is when the face is covered.

Reckon that's a flyer? (Masks, costumes etc which cover faces would fall foul of such a law)

Banks already ask motorcyclists to remove their helmets in order to gain entry (to their premises). They could of course extend this to 'any item that makes facial recognition impossible' which would mean that a burka wearing woman would either be obliged to uncover her face, or choose another bank. This would be a bank's policy, not a law though.

Any business that required such, is already allowed to make these demands.

looksee

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

Deleted User wrote: »

The issue is applying the logic fairly.

You are suggesting that any garb, garment, costume or clothing that covers one's face ought to be banned from public.
Given that the source of distress / foundations of the argument against is

Reckon that's a flyer? (Masks, costumes etc which cover faces would fall foul of such a law)

Banks already ask motorcyclists to remove their helmets in order to gain entry (to their premises). They could of course extend this to 'any item that makes facial recognition impossible' which would mean that a burka wearing woman would either be obliged to uncover her face, or choose another bank. This would be a bank's policy, not a law though.

Any business that required such, is already allowed to make these demands.

Where did I say it should be a legal requirement? I was simply discussing how it affected other people, and whether it should be accommodated (by people or institutions). People wearing masks, as I have already argued, are trying to represent themselves as something/one else for entertainment purposes. That is not the same as wearing a mask at all times in public, especially when interacting normally with other members of the public.

I don't really see that a legal requirement is going to work, but the public can simply refuse to engage with a person who is not engaging with them.

looksee

I'm religious and support the ban

looksee wrote: »

Where did I say it should be a legal requirement? I was simply discussing how it affected other people, and whether it should be accommodated (by people or institutions). People wearing masks, as I have already argued, are trying to represent themselves as something/one else for entertainment purposes. That is not the same as wearing a mask at all times in public, especially when interacting normally with other members of the public.

I don't really see that a legal requirement is going to work, but the public can simply refuse to engage with a person who is not engaging with them.

Apologies, but the thread has for the most part been discussing the idea of banning the burka, I fail to see how that could be done without legislation being enacted.

Again, I understand that masks are already worn and are normal etc, but from a legal & logical perspective, you would struggle massively to get a burka ban enacted (on the grounds of recognition above) that would not be easily challenged and over-turned if similar garments providing similar recognition issues were not also banned.

And of course the public can refuse, as above, the bank policy could be extended to any other premises that saw fit. (so long as the same logic was applied fairly - i.e if I turned up in a mask I would also be ignored).

looksee

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

Deleted User wrote: »

Apologies, but the thread has for the most part been discussing the idea of banning the burka, I fail to see how that could be done without legislation being enacted.

Again, I understand that masks are already worn and are normal etc, but from a legal & logical perspective, you would struggle massively to get a burka ban enacted (on the grounds of recognition above) that would not be easily challenged and over-turned if similar garments providing similar recognition issues were not also banned.

And of course the public can refuse, as above, the bank policy could be extended to any other premises that saw fit. (so long as the same logic was applied fairly - i.e if I turned up in a mask I would also be ignored).

Agreed, but the alternative of - over a longer period - simply socialising it out might be considered. The problem of course is that stupid people could use this as an excuse to resort to violence and intimidation, though that could happen anyway. The other problem is the people who feel that every other society's customs/beliefs should be fully recognised and accommodated, at the expense of own; the clothing is not, ultimately, a religious issue, it is a cultural one.

And if you turned up in a bank, or an airport, or a hotel or a supermarket etc wearing a mask, you would find security descending on your pretty quickly.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

looksee wrote: »

That is the whole point of the discussion - they are specifically not worn in private! And as to taking action against coercion, who decides what is coercion and how do you take action against it? Coercion happens in many homes, over many different issues

Really? I thought the point of the discussion was the Burka ban. Still; Islam does require differing degrees of modesty in private, up to and including dressing as if one were in public depending on circumstances, but are you saying it only matters what women are coerced into wearing in public, or what women wear in public? It doesn't matter to you how they may be treated in private?

looksee wrote: »

Just to be pedantic for a moment, the garment we are discussing, the burqa, is the full face (including the eyes) veil - there really are not too many of them around. More common is the Niqab, which is similar but the eyes are visible, which is not much of an improvement on the burqa and would possibly be the alternative if the burqa was banned. If people choose to wear a black tent that is their business. The only way it affects the rest of us is when the face is covered. There is no religious reason for this and no reason why it should be accommodated. If I went into my local bank with a cloth over my head I would very quickly find security arguing with me. Why should it be different because the cloth is black and part of an identifiable garment?

Well, to be equally pedantic neither Belgium or France banned the Burqa; they both banned face coverings that could include the Niqab, Burqa, Chador, or the twenty odd other variations of hijab coverings that some women might consider to be required by the principles of hijab. I imagine any ban contemplated by posters here would have to be similar in order to at least look like it was trying to avoid unConstitutionally imposing any disabilities or make a discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status. Whether it truly affects the rest of us is probably as debatable as whether there is a religious reason for it (well, not really, there definitely is a religious reason, just one that other people don't agree with, whereas it's much more debatable how affected you are by someone else's clothes); but there is no real reason for not accommodating it other than personal prejudice as far as I can see. Nor any particular reason why anyone should feel obliged to accommodate it either, I should add.

Anyways, I think for the purposes of the discussion the term burka or burqa is largely being used as catchall term for the various forms of Muslim dress which include a facial covering; which form of conservative hijab is chosen for the purpose probably isn't terribly relevant, is it?

looksee wrote: »

My objection would be to both the burqa and the niqab, but after that, if women wish to wear a hijab - a hijab does not cover the face - that is their business.

Sure, there are versions of hijab that do not cover the face, and what a woman chooses to wear is her business. It's still her business even if you object to some versions of what she wears though, and in my opinion, not your business, nor more than your scandalously figure hugging pencil skirt is hers.

jackofalltrades

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

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

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?

No, because it's ridiculous to compare the affects of wearing lipstick with that of wearing a Burqa.

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.

That section of my post was referring to women who are forced to wear it.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

jackofalltrades wrote: »

No, because it's ridiculous to compare the affects of wearing lipstick with that of wearing a Burqa.

Why? The effect it has on the person choosing to wear it is reasonably comparable; it makes them feel better about how they look. The effect it may have on people observing her wearing it could also be reasonably comparable; some will applaud the effort she's making to be more as she wants to be, others will denigrate her for being different from the way they think she should want to be.
If you think women don't feel pressured to wear lipstick by other women wearing it, then you may be more isolated from society than most burqa wearers.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

That section of my post was referring to women who are forced to wear it.

The criticism still stands; if they're being forced to wear a burqa out in public, banning the public wearing of a burqa only means they will be forced not to go out in public, further isolating them from society rather than helping them feel less isolated from society.

Elemonator

I'm religious and support the ban

I'm not going to comment on its implementation here. I literally have no opinion. But I know if you asked for something similar in our terms in the Middle East, you would be told take a hike.

I do believe this is another element of the argument on Muslim integration into Western Societies.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Elemonator wrote: »

I'm not going to comment on its implementation here. I literally have no opinion. But I know if you asked for something similar in our terms in the Middle East, you would be told take a hike.
I do believe this is another element of the argument on Muslim integration into Western Societies.

Indeed you would; there's no doubt that the Western European approach to social issues is (usually) less draconian, more permissive, and more egalitarian than the Middle Eastern approach. Which may be why things like Burqa Bans are so alarming to some people.

robindch

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

Two women secretly film from within an IS-controlled city:

http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/womens-secret-films-from-within-closed-city-of-islamic-state/

jackofalltrades

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

Absolam wrote: »

Why? The effect it has on the person choosing to wear it is reasonably comparable; it makes them feel better about how they look. The effect it may have on people observing her wearing it could also be reasonably comparable; some will applaud the effort she's making to be more as she wants to be, others will denigrate her for being different from the way they think she should want to be.
If you think women don't feel pressured to wear lipstick by other women wearing it, then you may be more isolated from society than most burqa wearers.

The criticism still stands; if they're being forced to wear a burqa out in public, banning the public wearing of a burqa only means they will be forced not to go out in public, further isolating them from society rather than helping them feel less isolated from society.

So looking for me to answer your questions and take you seriously, while at the same time getting in cheap digs.
Yeah good luck with that.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

jackofalltrades wrote: »

So looking for me to answer your questions and take you seriously, while at the same time getting in cheap digs.
Yeah good luck with that.

Hardly a cheap dig; it's a not unfounded observation, since you've freely offered the statement that you think it's it's ridiculous to compare the affects of wearing lipstick with that of wearing a Burqa. But if you want to focus on what you perceive as personal slights rather than substantiating your points, I suppose that at least gives an indication of what you think of the quality of your argument.

Punkyblip

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

robindch

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

Air France has opened up a new route to Tehran, but Tehran wants female airline staff to wear headscarves. Some, and perhaps most, don't want to, so Air France is reassigning them elsewhere.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35962239

robindch

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

Latvia is to ban the burka, with some fairly flaky reasoning:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/latvia-to-ban-face-veils-for-the-three-women-who-wear-them-1.2617703

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

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

I think Belgium's ban of the Burqa is reactionary to the recent events. I dislike Islam, I dislike religions but I think people should be able to wear whatever they want but there are some exceptions...

I think I know why I'm not allowed to wear a balaclava out on the street as it will make people fearful or I'll be mistaken as a para-military soldier or bank robber or I might be concealing my face to commit some crime.

The same applies for people that completely cover their face with Burqas. Based on that logic, that someone can commit a crime with their face completely covered (and it's not a safety product like a helmet which is required you take off when you enter buildings and certain spaces), I think Belgium has every right to ban them. It's a preventative measure rather than the cure.

As I'm biased and dislike religion, I find don't have much empathy for the banning of any Burqas.

Kev W

I'm religious and support the ban

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

I think I know why I'm not allowed to wear a balaclava out on the street as it will make people fearful or I'll be mistaken as a para-military soldier or bank robber or I might be concealing my face to commit some crime.

There's no law against wearing a balaclava.

galljga1

Kev W wrote: »

There's no law against wearing a balaclava.

I think the laws in France and Belgium ban any clothing that obscures the identity of the wearer in public. Not sure what they do if you are wearing a hat and scarf on a cold day.

galljga1

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

I think Belgium's ban of the Burqa is reactionary to the recent events. I dislike Islam, I dislike religions but I think people should be able to wear whatever they want but there are some exceptions...

I think I know why I'm not allowed to wear a balaclava out on the street as it will make people fearful or I'll be mistaken as a para-military soldier or bank robber or I might be concealing my face to commit some crime.

The same applies for people that completely cover their face with Burqas. Based on that logic, that someone can commit a crime with their face completely covered (and it's not a safety product like a helmet which is required you take off when you enter buildings and certain spaces), I think Belgium has every right to ban them. It's a preventative measure rather than the cure.

As I'm biased and dislike religion, I find don't have much empathy for the banning of any Burqas.

This thread is from 2010. The law was enacted in 2011.

MrPudding

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

Kev W wrote: »

There's no law against wearing a balaclava.

In France there is. The ban is face covering in public. This wiki article seems fairly decent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering

MrP

Kev W

I'm religious and support the ban

MrPudding wrote: »

In France there is. The ban is face covering in public. This wiki article seems fairly decent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering

MrP

I'm assuming Turquoise Hexagon Sun, whom I was addressing, lives in Ireland.

130Kph

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

Anytime Chinese foot binding pops into my head, for whatever reason, it reminds me of similarities to the Burka or niqab situation.

If female Chinese immigrants to Europe had kept this practice up for the last 100 years, I’m sure some of the women subject to it would say when interviewed “I do it because it shows my status (or is liberating) ” etc.

I’m sure a lot of the arguments in its defence put up by certain commentators would be much the same as for the Burqa :eek: Fortunately it’s not an issue we have to struggle with because

wiki wrote:

In 1912, the new Republic of China government banned foot binding, and leading intellectuals of the May Fourth Movement saw footbinding as a major symbol of China's backwardness…..

In a region south of Beijing, Dingxian, where over 99% of women were once bound, no new cases were found among those born after 1919……..

The practice was also stigmatized in Communist China, and the last vestiges of footbinding was stamped out, with the last case reported in 1957.

Fred Swanson

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

This post has been deleted.

Christy42

I'm religious and support the ban

130Kph wrote: »

Anytime Chinese foot binding pops into my head, for whatever reason, it reminds me of similarities to the Burka or niqab situation.

If female Chinese immigrants to Europe had kept this practice up for the last 100 years, I’m sure some of the women subject to it would say when interviewed “I do it because it shows my status (or is liberating) ” etc.

I’m sure a lot of the arguments in its defence put up by certain commentators would be much the same as for the Burqa :eek: Fortunately it’s not an issue we have to struggle with because

Ah here. I am not too found of burkas but they are no where near that league. A burka won't leave you physically deformed.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

130Kph wrote: »

Anytime Chinese foot binding pops into my head, for whatever reason, it reminds me of similarities to the Burka or niqab situation. If female Chinese immigrants to Europe had kept this practice up for the last 100 years, I’m sure some of the women subject to it would say when interviewed “I do it because it shows my status (or is liberating) ” etc. I’m sure a lot of the arguments in its defence put up by certain commentators would be much the same as for the Burqa :eek: Fortunately it’s not an issue we have to struggle with because

'For whatever reason' probably bears some thought, I suspect. But yes, as Christy42 has pointed out it's a pretty poor analogy. Yes, people become habituated to what is usual, no doubt, we wouldn't have the phrase 'better the devil you know' if it wasn't a common thing. It hardly rises to a defense of telling people they're legally prohibited from wearing what they want though.

pauldla

I'm religious and support the ban

Well, IIRC foot binding was practiced because small feet were considered beautiful, and as a status symbol i.e. the girl in question was from a wealthy enough family that she would not have to do any physical work. Is this comparable to the wearing of the burqa etc?

130Kph

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

This was a thought experiment more than an analogy.

Let’s say 600 3rd generation Chinese women in Ireland (a small %) bound their feet to this day. Surveys were done over the years which showed 65% did it ‘voluntarily’ and said it was her choice and the other 35% hated it and said it was making her life a misery.

It would not surprise me (sadly) if some fringe cultural relativists were campaigning against anyone trying to stop it here screeching: “leave the foot-binding alone, you ethno-centrist, neo-imperialist <insert other labels here>” or some other such absolutist sloganeering.

Of course, being conditioned to wear a burka is nowhere near as bad – but the principals involved are in essence, the same – which is what I was getting at.

Since this is just hypothetical, there’s no point in going into exhaustive detail since these figures are just conjectured.