Burka ban

Hotblack Desiato

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

We could just stop feeding the troll, y'know.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

King Mob wrote: »

No, we don't agree on that. I have no idea how you have reached the conclusion we did based on what I posted. Unless you are simply ignoring 90% of what I'm actually writing. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Do you think people wearing face masks in public in Japan causes issues with social interaction and 'living together'? Personally, I don't; I haven't observed it, though I haven't been here long. I get the impression you haven't observed it either, but if you have you could tell us how? I'm not ignoring your point that Japanese remove their masks when they feel it is appropriate either; I just think people in France would also remove face coverings when they felt it was appropriate. If they were allowed to wear them.

I understand you're offering a lot of opinions about headscarves, but as I said, I was comparing a culture where covering ones face in public is socially acceptable, with one where it is banned for supposedly social reasons. Not headscarves. I'd certainly acknowledge that both face-masks like the Japanese wear and headscarves like muslims wear would both have originated in utilitarian purposes before becoming more of a cultural item though.

By the way, your definitive 'Yes' the Japanese would have banned face masks if they were exclusively being worn by foreigners is followed by a rather more equivocal 'It's possible they might'. Just how likely do you think it is that, had the face-mask craze been introduced by (some, not all) foreigners, it would have been banned before catching on with locals? Is it possible the State's reaction might have been like it's reaction to other foreign styles; like business suits, or sneakers?

Obviously tattoes, a Japanese cultural expression more than 1500 years old, are currently frowned upon, but is that not more the Japanese government trying to conform to foreign views as well as remove overt associations with criminality, rather than trying to ban foreign influences? It's obviously a bit off topic, but it's interesting that you bring it up as action against foreigners, when it seems to be largely oriented against a portion of Japanese society. Maybe we can agree that covering your face with tattoes in public is rather less acceptable than covering it with a mask in public in Japan? Whether one is ethnic Japanese or not, I'd imagine.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not ignoring your point that Japanese remove their masks when they feel it is appropriate either; I just think people in France would also remove face coverings when they felt it was appropriate. If they were allowed to wear them.

So to confirm you think that Muslim women are ok with removing their headscarves when asked by authorities and taking them off to make a better impression with people?

Cause I don't think that's the case...

Absolam wrote: »

I'd certainly acknowledge that both face-masks like the Japanese wear and headscarves like muslims wear would both have originated in utilitarian purposes before becoming more of a cultural item though.

But again you are ignoring context to make your increasingly tenuous point.
They are not both "cultural items" on the same level, and pretending they are is disingenuous.
Yamakas and paper christmas hats are "cultural items" as well, aren't they?

Headscarves, in recent times as you would put it, do not serve a utilitarian purpose. It would be offensive to start wearing them for utilitarian purposes now.

They are not comparable. People's reactions would not be comparable because they are not comparable items.
To make them comparable you have to pretend either that headscarves are no more culturally significant than snot rags, or that snot rags are somehow as culturally significant to hijabs.

Absolam wrote: »

By the way, your definitive 'Yes' the Japanese would have banned face masks if they were exclusively being worn by foreigners is followed by a rather more equivocal 'It's possible they might'.

It's my feeling based on reactions to stuff that is actually comparable like actual headscarves. But I can't prove it since it's entirely hypothetical.
I'm sorry I can't be more definite for you for a fantasy situation.

Absolam wrote: »

Just how likely do you think it is that, had the face-mask craze been introduced by (some, not all) foreigners, it would have been banned before catching on with locals? Is it possible the State's reaction might have been like it's reaction to other foreign styles; like business suits, or sneakers?

But all of this is pointless speculation. Headscarves cannot "catch on" in the same way as facemasks for the long list of reasons I have pointed out.

Nor can I comment on how such a reaction could compare to reactions from 100+ years ago.
Western fashion was adopted in the 19th century, so the reaction now is not comparable. And sneakers are just part of that same style.
In fact, it's not even considered "western" anymore. They're just clothes.

Absolam wrote: »

Obviously tattoes, a Japanese cultural expression more than 1500 years old, are currently frowned upon, but is that not more the Japanese government trying to conform to foreign views as well as remove overt associations with criminality, rather than trying to ban foreign influences?

No, it's not about the Japanese Government trying to conform to foreign views at all.
But they have no problem applying such a sweeping rule and prevailing to foreigners regardless of how those tatoos are viewed in different cultures.

Absolam wrote: »

It's obviously a bit off topic, ...

Yes it is. It would be better served if you addressed the questions I put to you rather than avoid them for random tangents.

I asked you about the difficulties of someone who wears a headscarf in Japan.
If your logic held, then they must have no problems at all since everyone is so used to having their face covered.
Is this the case?
If it is not the case, why not?

If you ignore this question again, then we're done. I don't think you are arguing in good faith.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

I tell you what, rather than chasing off after your musings on headscarves, how about we address my initial observation and subsequent question.

Do you think people wearing face masks in public in Japan causes issues with social interaction and 'living together'?

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

I tell you what, rather than chasing off after your musings on headscarves, how about we address my initial observation and subsequent question.

Do you think people wearing face masks in public in Japan causes issues with social interaction and 'living together'?

I have answered this directly and in clear terms several times.
I have also explained in clear terms several times how this is not a comparable situation for a long list of reasons you are ignoring.

I tried to bring in a comparable situation (ie, actual headscarves in Japan) but you constantly ignored the question cause it obviously contradicts your "observation."

You are not discussing this in good faith. We're done.

Samaris

I'm religious and support the ban

People started wearing masks in Japan when they were ill to prevent spreading the illness, then to prevent themselves from getting ill, some because it's symbol of not wanting to interact with people (like headphones) and some for warmth.

Headscarves don't cover the face and don't share any of those reasons (could possibly argue "warmth" as a minor consideration). So what's the connection again?

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

King Mob wrote: »

I have answered this directly and in clear terms several times.

I thought you had too; you clearly said no it doesn't. But then you clearly said no you don't agree it doesn't, which I think made your opinion less clear... hence my asking.

King Mob wrote: »

I have also explained in clear terms several times how this is not a comparable situation for a long list of reasons you are ignoring. I tried to bring in a comparable situation (ie, actual headscarves in Japan) but you constantly ignored the question cause it obviously contradicts your "observation." You are not discussing this in good faith. We're done.

Yes, I understand why you think it's not comparable and I've no doubt that whilst Frances ban on face coverings is ostensibly aimed at all face coverings which prevent French people from engaging in the kind of social interaction and 'living together' that the Japanese manage so easily, the real reasoning has far far more to do with the kinds of bigotry you're alluding to in your posts about headscarves.

pilly

Absolam wrote: »

I thought you had too; you clearly said no it doesn't. But then you clearly said no you don't agree it doesn't, which I think made your opinion less clear... hence my asking.
Yes, I understand why you think it's not comparable and I've no doubt that whilst Frances ban on face coverings is ostensibly aimed at all face coverings which prevent French people from engaging in the kind of social interaction and 'living together' that the Japanese manage so easily, the real reasoning has far far more to do with the kinds of bigotry you're alluding to in your posts about headscarves.

To be fair the Japanese are not well known for their social interaction.

Imo they come across as very much a group of people who don't want to interact with strangers.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, I understand why you think it's not comparable and I've no doubt that whilst Frances ban on face coverings is ostensibly aimed at all face coverings which prevent French people from engaging in the kind of social interaction and 'living together' that the Japanese manage so easily, the real reasoning has far far more to do with the kinds of bigotry you're alluding to in your posts about headscarves.

It is silly to compare Japan to France but it might highlight the contrasts. What goes on in Japan doesn't involve anything to do with undermining "living together" Face covering in France by Muslims is connected to not "living together" , its one of the many mechanisms which contribute to a parallel society.
As far as the rule goes in isolation it wont amount to much apart from some general signalling

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

I thought you had too; you clearly said no it doesn't. But then you clearly said no you don't agree it doesn't, which I think made your opinion less clear... hence my asking.

No, it doesn't interfere with social interaction.
No, I don't agree with your conclusion about that because you are leaving out context and other factors and seemingly pretending they don't exist.

I go to great pains in both of those posts to explain what I mean, but it seems you stopped reading after the first couple of words.

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, I understand why you think it's not comparable and I've no doubt that whilst Frances ban on face coverings is ostensibly aimed at all face coverings which prevent French people from engaging in the kind of social interaction and 'living together' that the Japanese manage so easily, the real reasoning has far far more to do with the kinds of bigotry you're alluding to in your posts about headscarves.

Then maybe you should have started by explaining than rather than being coy and deliberately obtuse.

And then, if this is your point, that same bigotry exists in Japan, just in a different form. So your point is a bit silly and obvious and doesn't have much to do with facemasks at all.

Now, go back, read my posts properly and answer my very simple, direct questions. Then maybe there could be a discussion here.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

pilly wrote: »

To be fair the Japanese are not well known for their social interaction.
Imo they come across as very much a group of people who don't want to interact with strangers.

Maybe they're not, but to be entirely fair for the last couple of weeks I have encountered nothing but enthusiastic politeness and over the top helpfulness at every turn, despite the fact that I have mastered no more than six words and am about as strange a stranger as they are likely to meet. I'll take that kind of poor interaction over a scarf ban any day

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

King Mob wrote: »

No, it doesn't interfere with social interaction.
No, I don't agree with your conclusion about that because you are leaving out context and other factors and seemingly pretending they don't exist.

What conclusion? My only conclusion was that it doesn't cause a problem with social interaction or 'living together'. Which you've agreed with.

King Mob wrote: »

Then maybe you should have started by explaining than rather than being coy and deliberately obtuse.

Nothing coy or obtuse about the fact that the stated and upheld reason for banning face coverings in France is that it interferes with social interaction. My opinions on the rather more ignoble motivations behind the ban I made clear in detail early on in the thread, but the only reasoning the French govt was able to stand over in front of other nations was the 'living together' notion, which is why it's the one I'm discussing.

King Mob wrote: »

And then, if this is your point, that same bigotry exists in Japan, just in a different form. So your point is a bit silly and obvious and doesn't have much to do with facemasks at all.

. If it does exist, it doesn't extend to banning face coverings, does it? At very least then, the form isn't one that is expressed as outright oppression, which makes it a rather more tolerant form of bigotry.

pilly

Absolam wrote: »

Maybe they're not, but to be entirely fair for the last couple of weeks I have encountered nothing but enthusiastic politeness and over the top helpfulness at every turn, despite the fact that I have mastered no more than six words and am about as strange a stranger as they are likely to meet. I'll take that kind of poor interaction over a scarf ban any day

There's a difference between politeness and helpfulness and true interaction. I know which I prefer.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

What conclusion? My only conclusion was that it doesn't cause a problem with social interaction or 'living together'. Which you've agreed with.

Your conclusion that the reactions to them are comparable that translate to each other.

Absolam wrote: »

Nothing coy or obtuse about the fact that the stated and upheld reason for banning face coverings in France is that it interferes with social interaction.

And the reason that face masks do not interfere with social interaction is in part because Japanese people do not care about taking them off!

Absolam wrote: »

. If it does exist, it doesn't extend to banning face coverings, does it? At very least then, the form isn't one that is expressed as outright oppression, which makes it a rather more tolerant form of bigotry.

If what doesn't exist? Bigotry against Muslims in Japan? Seriously?
So now, not only are you again ignoring my question, you are being this obtuse?

I think I've fed this enough... :rolleyes:

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

pilly wrote: »

There's a difference between politeness and helpfulness and true interaction. I know which I prefer.

Well, I've had plenty of interactions. Whether anyone would characterise them as true interactions is a lot harder to say. I'm certain no one has fallen in love with me, and I'm 50/50 on whether I've been told someone's deepest darkest truths in the small hours over a few flasks of sake, if that helps. I may need to increase my vocabulary substantially before I can make claims about true interactions. Or whether I prefer them.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

King Mob wrote: »

Your conclusion that the reactions to them are comparable that translate to each other.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're saying here.

King Mob wrote: »

And the reason that face masks do not interfere with social interaction is in part because Japanese people do not care about taking them off!

How does whether they care about taking them off make a difference when they have them on? The comparison wasn't how people not covering their faces in public places affects social interaction and 'living together', it was people covering their faces.

King Mob wrote: »

If what doesn't exist? Bigotry against Muslims in Japan? Seriously? So now, not only are you again ignoring my question, you are being this obtuse? I think I've fed this enough... :rolleyes:

The same bigotry, is what I referred to from your post. In France, you have a bigotry such that they will ban all face coverings from public spaces, ostensibly to safeguard social interaction and 'living together', but realistically to remove an overt Muslim presence from the streets and give the appearance of doing something about their immigration issues. In Japan, face coverings are ubiquitous, unbanned, and Islam, whilst foreign and odd, is tolerated. In fact, some think Japan can give Europe some lessons in getting along with the Muslim world.. Personally, if the lesson is don't go banning clothing, I'd agree. If they're bigoted at all (and no doubt some are, some are everywhere), it's nowhere near the same bigotry we're seeing in France.

recedite

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

Absolam wrote: »

Maybe they're not, but to be entirely fair for the last couple of weeks I have encountered nothing but enthusiastic politeness and over the top helpfulness at every turn, despite the fact that I have mastered no more than six words and am about as strange a stranger as they are likely to meet. I'll take that kind of poor interaction over a scarf ban any day

If you can master "You may kiss the bride" in Japanese, there is a lot of money to be made over there by westerners dressed up as priests, apparently.

But maybe you already knew that :pac:
Carry on, and take it easy on the saki...

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

I doubt I could muster the gravitas, but if I'm stuck it may be worth a shot!

recedite

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

I understand it might be quite difficult to keep a straight face conducting the marriage vows of two Japanese people while dressed as Father Ted.

But you could always wear one of those disposable masks.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Not to worry, as it turns out I look quite dashing in kamishimo. And even though I'm a filthy foreigner I still get to choose for myself whether to cover my face or not

robindch

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

The BBC looks across Europe to see how the burka's doing:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13038095

silverharp

seems like a logical decision

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/05/council-was-right-to-cut-niqab-wearers-welfare-benefits-court/

Council was right to cut niqab-wearer’s welfare benefits: court

A Muslim woman who refused to remove her niqab while undergoing training to find a job rightfully had her benefits cut by 30%, the highest Dutch administrative court said on Tuesday. The woman, who has since moved to England, refused to remove the garment which only left her eyes exposed. Utrecht city council, charged with helping the jobless find work, then reduced her welfare benefits, claiming that the niqab substantially reduced her chances of finding work. ‘An uncovered face plays and important role in the contact between people and is essential in finding work,’ the court said in its ruling. While the woman is entitled to wear a niqab under freedom of religion legislation, the council’s interest in helping her to find a job as quickly as possible is more important, the court said. In addition, her refusal to remove the niqab was putting unnecessary pressure on council resources.

silverharp

Austria

http://www.politico.eu/article/austrian-parliament-backs-burqa-ban/

Women who wear face veils in public from October will face €150 fines.

By Cynthia Kroet
| 5/17/17, 9:08 AM CET
| Updated 5/17/17, 11:04 AM CET


Austria’s parliament on Tuesday evening approved a series of integration measures including a ban on full-face coverings in public, local media reported.

Those who wear veils that cover their facial features from October may have to pay a €150 fine.


Other measures in the new rules include a one-year obligatory integration course including German language tuition for migrants who have a good chance of staying in Austria. The laws also encourage asylum seekers to do unpaid charitable work, with the aim of preparing for the labor market.

The government proposed the measures, which the far-right Freedom Party of Austria criticized for not going far enough and the Greens slammed for going too far, earlier this year.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

The government proposed the measures, which the far-right Freedom Party of Austria criticized for not going far enough and the Greens slammed for going too far, earlier this year.

Always encouraging when you get slammed equally by the far right and far left

robindch

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

smacl wrote: »

Always encouraging when you get slammed equally by the far right and far left

Maybe better just refer to them as the "far far"?

Reason being that I find it increasingly difficult to distinguish hardline rightwingers from hardline lefties - yes, their effervescent virtue-signalling might concern mildly different topics, but the individuals themselves seem much the same.

silverharp

smacl wrote: »

Always encouraging when you get slammed equally by the far right and far left

probably means its balanced

Maybe better just refer to them as the "far far"?

Reason being that I find it increasingly difficult to distinguish hardline rightwingers from hardline lefties - yes, their effervescent virtue-signalling might concern mildly different topics, but the individuals themselves seem much the same.

they are similar. in reality "far far" right would be would be the opposite of both a communist and a fascist, an anarcho capitalist or extreme libertarian seems like the best fit. A fascist or a communist need to be placed beside each other

Hotblack Desiato

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

we're back again to the inadequacies of the one-dimensional left-right model, when others such as the Political Compass have long recognised that (at least) two dimensions are necessary i.e. a left-right 'economic' axis and an authoritarian - libertarian 'social' axis

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

we're back again to the inadequacies of the one-dimensional left-right model, when others such as the Political Compass have long recognised that (at least) two dimensions are necessary i.e. a left-right 'economic' axis and an authoritarian - libertarian 'social' axis

Must dig out the thread but there was an online questionnaire that positioned you in this space posted here a couple of years back. From memory the large majority of A&A were huddled in the liberal socialist quadrant, with one or two interesting outliers.

silverharp

smacl wrote: »

Must dig out the thread but there was an online questionnaire that positioned you in this space posted here a couple of years back. From memory the large majority of A&A were huddled in the liberal socialist quadrant, with one or two interesting outliers.

yer all just rebelling against your parents, get a job hippy

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

yer all just rebelling against your parents, get a job hippy

You know it. Peace out dude! :pac: