Burka ban

sonicthebadger*

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

so i can't wear a mask going to a fancy dress party? or if i am, how do they define the exceptions?

Exactly, you can't wear it going but you can wear it when you get there. No need for an exception.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Because the woman will need to go to the police, inform on her husband/"guardian" or whatever and have the police show up to deliver a lecture.

I think that's pretty unlikely.

Is it more or less likely than the scenario in Hellfire's post?

Woman is forced to wear burka by husband, goes out wearing it and gets arrested. Given that it is unlikely she will inform on her husband she refuses to tell police she was forced to wear it and gets fined or imprisoned herself.

So she is now being doubly oppressed. How is this helping?

g5fd6ow0hseima

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

so i can't wear a mask going to a fancy dress party? or if i am, how do they define the exceptions?

I dont really see this as a comparison.

I might wear a hockey mask to a party once in my life, but i'd have it off in public simply because my vision would be otherwise hindered and I would expcet a gard to tell me to remove it anyways. Now if I was to wear a hockey mask in public every day, wouldnt that be slightly retarded?

sonicthebadger*

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

Wicknight wrote: »

Have they actually banned people (all people) from concealing their face in public?

And why is concealing your face in public bad?

I don't know how they will work it in France but here it's pretty much already like that, you try getting petrol with a motorbike helmet on for instance. Also if you're wearing a scarf on your face on a cold day I would be considered polite to uncover your face when going indoors or when speaking to a stranger and you would not have the option of refusing to show your face to a Garda if you were asked.

Why should one group of people be treated differently from everyone else?

g5fd6ow0hseima

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

Wicknight wrote: »

Have they actually banned people (all people) from concealing their face in public?

And why is concealing your face in public bad?

But why would you conceal your face in public?

MrPudding

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

sensibleken wrote: »

I think its legislating based on these types of assumptions that makes islam back into a corner and makes it agressive.

as always, lunatics get the headlines, and this seems to me as legislation based on tabloid headlines. there was all sort of commotion in the 80s about video nasties causing murders which was a load of nonsense too.

I sure a lot of moderate muslims would support this ban, there are such things as muslim feminists. But in light of this and the minaret banning in switzerland etc. if i was a european muslim, even a moderate or liberal one I would see a growing amount of legislation designed to target me specifically.

I would worry about this type of legislation pushing more people to the extremes.

if you check online about the actual legislation there is a small fine for wearing it and a huge fine for forcing someone to wear it. Something like €120 for wearing one and €30000 for forcing someone to wear one.

MrP

Rev Hellfire

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

Wicknight wrote: »

So she is now being doubly oppressed. How is this helping?

It helps because it creates a barrier to wearing such garb. The practicalities of effectively either confining yourself to your home or continually getting fined will make observing this practice neither convenient or practical in the long term.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

Mabel Clever Brush wrote: »

But why would you conceal your face in public?

slightly facetiously, because you want to?
you could ask the same question 'but why would you want to tattoo a picture of a donkey onto your face?'; that doesn't provide any insight into whether such tattoos should be illegal.

less facetiously, for covering a recent operation on the skin on your face? kids wearing hallowe'en masks? just because you don't *have* to wear a william shatner mask on the way to a fancy dress party, it shouldn't facilitate making the act illegal.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

you try getting petrol with a motorbike helmet on for instance. Also if you're wearing a scarf on your face on a cold day I would be considered polite to uncover your face when going indoors or when speaking to a stranger and you would not have the option of refusing to show your face to a Garda if you were asked.

as i've mentioned before, i've no real issue with someone in a public facing role being allowed to refuse to deal with someone who doesn't show them their face.

Daftendirekt

I'm religious and support the ban

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It helps because it creates a barrier to wearing such garb. The practicalities of effectively either confining yourself to your home or continually getting fined will make observing this practice neither convenient or practical in the long term.

Why is that desirable though?

In that case, a woman who's forced to wear it is being doubly oppressed. A woman who wears it by choice is being made a criminal simply for wearing religious garb.

Who's supposed to benefit from this?

Zombrex

Mabel Clever Brush wrote: »

But why would you conceal your face in public?

Because you want to.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It helps because it creates a barrier to wearing such garb. The practicalities of effectively either confining yourself to your home or continually getting fined will make observing this practice neither convenient or practical in the long term.

"convenient or practical"?

This is supposed to be about oppressed women, so convenient or practical doesn't come into it. An oppressed woman is not choosing to wear the burka so how inconvenient or impractical it is to them is irrelevant.

Can we clarify, is this actually about helping oppressed women or is this about stopping people from wearing the burka because we don't like it. Because there seems to be a lot of conflicting nonsense going on.

Rev Hellfire

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

Wicknight wrote: »

"convenient or practical"?

This is supposed to be about oppressed women, so convenient or practical doesn't come into it. An oppressed woman is not choosing to wear the burka so how inconvenient or impractical it is to them is irrelevant.

Its very relevant, these things continue to exist because we accommodate them.

irishconvert

Wicknight wrote: »

Can we clarify, is this actually about helping oppressed women or is this about stopping people from wearing the burka because we don't like it. Because there seems to be a lot of conflicting nonsense going on.

If people are honest they will admit it is the latter reason.How come everyone is all concerned about opression of Muslim women all of a sudden? Answer: they aren't.

Who here is brave enough to stop hiding behind nonsense arguments about protecting Muslim women from opression and admit they just don't like the burqa and want it banned for this reason alone?

Mark Hamill

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

Achilles wrote: »

Surely the best route would be education. To help make them aware of the fact that now that they live in a different society that they have the right to choose to wear it or not and that there is no right or wrong decision for them to make.

If they are being oppressed, either actively (by husbands, families) or passively (being brought up to accept the oppression as normal) do you think they would even look for that education?

MrPudding

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

irishconvert wrote: »

Who here is brave enough to stop hiding behind nonsense arguments about protecting Muslim women from opression and admit they just don't like the burqa and want it banned for this reason alone?

Why can it not be both?

MrP

Dades

irishconvert wrote: »

Who here is brave enough to stop hiding behind nonsense arguments about protecting Muslim women from opression and admit they just don't like the burqa and want it banned for this reason alone?

I kinda said that here.

I'm undecided as to whether it's right, but not as to whether that bothers me.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its very relevant, these things continue to exist because we accommodate them.

It is not relevant because by definition by being oppressed whether it is convenient or practical is irrelevant. They are oppressed, they have to do it anyway no matter how inconvenient or impractical it is. That is what being oppressed is.

It is like saying if we take away the chairs in a slave factory the slaves will stop working and go home because it is now inconvenient for them to do so. Which of course they won't because they are slaves.

You assume these women don't have a choice in the matter so the ban is necessary but then the ban only works if the women have a choice not to wear the burka and the ban makes it inconvenient for them to do so and they choose not to because of this.

Mark Hamill

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

Wicknight wrote: »

Or a law that says a woman cannot be alone in a car with a man on the logic that some times when a man forces a woman into a car to rape her.

Isn't that law essentially describing the burka itself (replace "alone in a car" with "in the presence of a man, face uncovered")?

Wicknight wrote: »

But the logic is that all Muslim women who wear the burka are doing so under oppression from men which obviously not the case, any more than every woman driving a car with a man in the passenger seat is doing so because the man is threatening to beat her if she doesn't. Does this happen? Yes. Does it happen in all cases? No.

Restricting women's freedoms on the grounds that there is a small chance they might be doing something through coercion seems ridiculous.

But it is coercion. Sure it might not be all active coercion (with a male figure holding the reigns) but even being brought up to believe this is coercion. It is not something that is there to benefit the woman, it is to reinforce male dominance, which is wrong, wether the women recognise or not.

Mark Hamill

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

as i've mentioned before, i've no real issue with someone in a public facing role being allowed to refuse to deal with someone who doesn't show them their face.

Why does it need to be a public facing role? Why not in every day culture? Interpersonal relationships with strangers is very dependent on facial contact in the west.

Mark Hamill

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

irishconvert wrote: »

If people are honest they will admit it is the latter reason.How come everyone is all concerned about opression of Muslim women all of a sudden? Answer: they aren't.

Who here is brave enough to stop hiding behind nonsense arguments about protecting Muslim women from opression and admit they just don't like the burqa and want it banned for this reason alone?

Noone is allowed to not like the burka because it oppresses women then?

Malari

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

irishconvert wrote: »

If people are honest they will admit it is the latter reason.How come everyone is all concerned about opression of Muslim women all of a sudden? Answer: they aren't.

Who here is brave enough to stop hiding behind nonsense arguments about protecting Muslim women from opression and admit they just don't like the burqa and want it banned for this reason alone?

Dades wrote: »

I kinda said that here.

I'm undecided as to whether it's right, but not as to whether that bothers me.

And I agree with what Dades says.

I don't like the burqa. I care about what looks to me like the oppression of women in the society in which I live. Seeing women in a burqa makes me feel very uncomfortable.

Beruthiel

Dades wrote: »

I'm undecided as to whether it's right, but not as to whether that bothers me.

I feel the exact same.
Not for one second do I believe it will actually help the women who are already oppressed. In fact, there is a possibility it could make life harder.
But, it is sending out a message.

I see the Burka as a tool of opression. In many countries, that's exactly what it is.

g5fd6ow0hseima

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

I've a thing for muslim girls.

You know.... forbidden fruit n all.

g5fd6ow0hseima

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

Malari wrote: »

Seeing women in a burqa makes me feel very uncomfortable.

For me its more along the lines of : All this for religion? Because of some random set of texts written by some cave dweller centuries ago? Centuries ago, when people were not educated and everything evolved around god, heaven and hell, it was understandable - but in the 21st century? Get a grip.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why does it need to be a public facing role? Why not in every day culture? Interpersonal relationships with strangers is very dependent on facial contact in the west.

i never said it need just be restricted to a public facing role, but interpersonal relationships are outside the bailiwick of the law, so aren't really pertinent.

Malari

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

Mabel Clever Brush wrote: »

For me its more along the lines of : All this for religion? Because of some random set of texts written by some cave dweller centuries ago? Centuries ago, when people were not educated and everything evolved around god, heaven and hell, it was understandable - but in the 21st century? Get a grip.

That's sort of what makes me so uncomfortable. I associate it with either religious or cultural brainwashing and I don't like the idea of it being acceptable in Europe.

robindch

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

irishconvert wrote: »

How come everyone is all concerned about opression of Muslim women all of a sudden? Answer: they aren't. Who here is brave enough to stop hiding behind nonsense arguments about protecting Muslim women from opression and admit they just don't like the burqa and want it banned for this reason alone?

Enlightened people have been concerned for a very long time at the use of religion to oppress the powerless.

Within your particular religion, the burqa is one of the ways in which this oppression is exercised, so you're quite correct in saying that the burqa is disliked.

However, you're quite wrong to believe that this dislike is the only thing that's motivating people -- some of us are also concerned that a significant percentage of our fellow human beings have their freedom restricted by a large collection of aggressive religious supremacists.

Mark Hamill

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

i never said it need just be restricted to a public facing role, but interpersonal relationships are outside the bailiwick of the law, so aren't really pertinent.

Forget about in terms of law. You agree that in terms of public facing roles, someone should be allowed to refuse to deal with someone covering the face, but this is because of our culture, face to face contact is important in the west, and if public facing roles are allowed to refuse to deal with those who cover their faces, should we, as a nation, not be allowed to refuse to deal with those who cover their faces?

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

refuse to deal with them in what sense? according to this law, a woman would not be allowed go out for a walk while wearing a burka, even though she might not interact with any member of the public, unless you consider crossing someone's line of sight as a meaningful interaction.