Burka ban

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

The issue is whether or not women are free to wear or not to wear the burqa.

In general, women who subscribe to islam certainly are not free to make an unencumbered choice, and any claim that women are "free" to make this choice is at best naive and at worst, in denial of the fairly basic facts of the matter.

How are you defining "in general" in this context?

I see no basis for this claim other than the some what philosophical idea that if you subscribe to a religion you aren't "free" in a very abstract sense.

Also explain to me how Islamic women are more free to choose whether or not to wear the burka when it has been made illegal to do so? How does that increase freedom and decrease oppression?

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

i've met people who do things that society in general would consider a lot stranger than wearing a veil over their face. the same society would generally consider some of these acts to be extremely stupid, and in some cases potentially, and in some cases, actually, harmful.
yet there is no push in society to have these acts banned. the only difference is that the acts above are generally not associated with religion.

Mark Hamill

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

comparing speeding and wearing a burka doesn't provide any insight.
speeding in a car has potentially fatal consequences.
if this law was to pass in ireland, i would not be allowed to go out with a veil over my face, even though that act would not have any consequences.

irishconvert wrote: »

You keep comparing the wearing of an item of clothing, which harms no one, to other actions which can and do result in death (commiting suicide, speeding in a car). It is not a valid comparsion.

You dont think the burka will just lead to major societal problems?
The burka promotes the very thing it tries to protect against. That women are different to men, and need to be treated differently. Read Robindchs post again, the one that describes his interactions with burka clad women in middle eastern countries.Read again about the dangers of these burka clad women, living in countries that entirely support the burka (in law and in the general population), of talking to any man they are not married to (which is bizarre, as that is what it is suposed to facilitate), the dangers of any woman not wearing the burka in being attacked for not doing so.
There are great dangers in the burka, because of the lifestyle it represents.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You dont think the burka will just lead to major societal problems?

has it? it's not banned in ireland.
ireland has a completely different set of laws to some of the countries mentioned; you're trying to conflate the burka with laws which don't exist in ireland.

Mark Hamill

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

Wicknight wrote: »

No it doesn't, it simply replaces it with another form of oppression. You cannot stop oppression by introducing it in a different form.

To stop the oppression with that aspect would be to tell the woman that she can wear what ever the heck she wants and if anyone says otherwise they are in the wrong.

Not telling women they have to dress a particular way because if they dress a different way they are being oppressed.

The only thing this ban does is hide the oppression so we can pretend it no longer exists.

So its better to allow the oppression, as long as we can see it?

Wicknight wrote: »

But you know that is someone actually tried to do that (ban frying pans because it is claimed to be a symbol of male oppression of women in the kitchen) they would be laughed at and dismissed as crazy.

Thats not what I described. I described a situation where women had to bring the frying pans everywhere they go.

Wicknight wrote: »

We should if it doesn't do anything other than further oppress the group we are supposed to be helping.

You cannot free people by dictating in law what they are supposed to be doing with their "freedom".

You can if they dont apreciate the freedom.

Wicknight wrote: »

Exactly. So why are you pretending this law is for liberating people?

It is to oppress behavior in women we don't like (covering of the face) because we don't like it. It is the same as requiring people to wear pants or a bra.

It has nothing to do with freeing women from anything.

There is a difference between a law which protects people and one which dominates people. The is an objective need for most laws. If people speed then they might cause an accident. If people steal then someone else unfairly looses something. If someone doesn't wear the burka then what?

Mark Hamill

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

Wicknight wrote: »

Then they obviously cannot freely choose and the hypothetical changes. But you never mentioned acid throwing threats in the original hypothetical.

I'm I just to assume that any woman in a burka is wearing it because they have been threatened with bodily harm?

No, threatened with a period in hell.

robindch

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

going by that post, the logical conclusion would be to ban islam.

irishconvert wrote: »

Let me get this clear, are you saying that Muslim women are incapable of making any choices?

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm I just to assume that any woman in a burka is wearing it because they have been threatened with bodily harm?

If any of you you could address the claim that there is subtle (or not so subtle) social coercion going on, and consequently, that the choice to wear is not freely made, then this debate might avoid these kinds of hare-brained characterizations.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

If any of you you could address the claim that there is subtle (or not so subtle) social coercion going on, and consequently, that the choice to wear is not freely made, then this debate might avoid these kinds of hare-brained characterizations.

Social coercion is going on all the time all over the place. In a free society we don't make laws to try and stop it unless people are actually being forced to do something they don't want to do.

Simply saying that peer pressure makes people do things is not enough to justify a universal restriction of freedoms.

People have the right to be stupid, and they have the right to do something because everyone else is doing. The State does not have the right to get into their heads and tell them what they actually should be doing is X instead of Y. The State does not have the right to universally ban simple things like wearing a burka because some people may wear it in order to fit in to their social or religious group.

I would no more enact a law banning the burka than enact a law banning Big Brother and telling people they should be reading a book instead.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

okay, we've been arguing about this law and why it is or isn't useful; just wondering what people might see as less controversial alternatives?

is there any unification to the syllabus concerning religion in irish schools, which is mandatory?
i reckon there might be benefit to be gained from a syllabus which all schools had to teach, regardless of religious affiliation, outlining the world's major religions in terms of history and beliefs. in that you could include that little nugget that the burka predates islam and is more a cultural rather than a religious artefact.

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, threatened with a period in hell.

So not physically threatened then.

It is up to the woman herself is she believes that her god wants her to wear a burka, and if she decides yes he does that is her decision.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

If any of you you could address the claim that there is subtle (or not so subtle) social coercion going on, and consequently, that the choice to wear is not freely made, then this debate might avoid these kinds of hare-brained characterizations.

kinda hard to address that claim when the counter-argument is simply 'wearing burka'='brainwashed'. as happened when i posted the NY times article which purported to show two women who chose to wear it.

sink

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

The issue is whether or not women are free to wear or not to wear the burqa.

In general, women who subscribe to islam certainly are not free to make an unencumbered choice, and any claim that women are "free" to make this choice is at best naive and at worst, in denial of the fairly basic facts of the matter.

The truth is most of our choices aren't free at all. We all follow socially accepted norms, not because we want to, but because we feel pressurised to. Think about this for a second, there are many things all of us do in privacy that we would never dream of doing publicly. I sometimes let a large one rip when i'm sitting on the couch watching tv on my own. I wouldn't dream of doing that in front of a group of people, unless I knew all of them very well. I still would want to expel, but I would feel wrong doing so because of the restrictions society has placed on me. Should you introduce a law that prohibits me holding one in because I don't have an unencumbered choice?

I understand your motivation. I hate the burka and all it represents. But I don't think governments should be in the business of legislating for or against cultural practices. They can legislate against one one individual or group forcing another individual or group to behave one way or another through force, but they can't legislate for or against people under the influence of peer pressure. Any time governments have attempted to do so the have always failed. We usually tackle peer pressure through education and awareness campaigns, through support groups and help lines. We should be doing the same with the burka and all other culturally motivated negative practices and behaviours.

Compare the burka to the anti-vaxers or homoeopathy. They're all negative practices that are harmful. How come we don't legally mandate vaccinations and outlaw homoeopathy? Why do we instead use public awareness campaigns and support lines? If we did outlaw them would that solve the problem?

Look at negative practices we do outlaw such as illegal narcotics. How well has the war on drugs worked? Does the prohibition on drugs convince people they should not take them? Do the people who continue to distribute drugs illegally do so in a decent manner, or does the prohibition cause them to behave more violent?

How about something that is still illegal in this country but not in others, abortion. Is the policy working? Do people not just hop on a plane and get it fixed across the water? When it was banned everywhere, did we not have the problem of illegal abortions being carried out by unlicensed doctors?

What about practices that were previously outlawed as they were deemed negative towards society but are no longer such as homosexuality and divorce? Were they successful policies? Were heterosexual lifelong marriages more successful when the law was designed to push people towards that path?

In all cases bans on individual practices never solved any of the fundamental problems. Raising public awareness and educating people about the harm these practices cause is in all cases a far better and more successful policy. The burka should be exposed as an oppressive practice that subjugates women and treats them as second class citizens. It should however not be made illegal as that creates as many problems as it solves.

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So its better to allow the oppression, as long as we can see it?

No, it is better to direct effort to actually helping these women, rather than enacting a law that allows us to ignore the problem because it becomes invisible.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thats not what I described. I described a situation where women had to bring the frying pans everywhere they go.

That doesn't matter to the point.

Some women are forced by abusive men to cook them dinner. These women use cooking instruments.

So if you ban cooking then these women cannot be forced to cook dinner for their husbands.

So why don't we ban cooking?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You can if they dont apreciate the freedom.

No you can't. An oppressed woman is no more free after this law than they were free before. All you have done is replaced who is oppressing them with regard to what they are supposed to wear.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There is a difference between a law which protects people and one which dominates people. The is an objective need for most laws. If people speed then they might cause an accident. If people steal then someone else unfairly looses something. If someone doesn't wear the burka then what?

And if someone wears a burka? Who does that harm?

If you enact a law saying a woman cannot wear a burka you harm them by removing their freedoms. You do the same thing you complain about.

They are no more free after than they were before. All you have done is increase the number of oppressed Muslim women from some to all.

Mark Hamill

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

Wicknight wrote: »

So not physically threatened then.

To these women, the threat of hell is a physical threat, they believe it exists and that it could happen to them if they dont follow some arbitrary set of laws. People have claimed without basis that the burka is needed for avoiding hell, and islamic women have accepted because islam is a religion that discourages questioning authority.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is up to the woman herself is she believes that her god wants her to wear a burka, and if she decides yes he does that is her decision.

Since when has someone believing something been sufficient reason to let them do it?

Mark Hamill

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

Wicknight wrote: »

No, it is better to direct effort to actually helping these women, rather than enacting a law that allows us to ignore the problem because it becomes invisible.

And how do we help these women?

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't matter to the point.

Its precisely the point. Without it, your example is not applicable, its too different.

Wicknight wrote: »

No you can't. An oppressed woman is no more free after this law than they were free before. All you have done is replaced who is oppressing them with regard to what they are supposed to wear.

I believe we can. I guess it depends on wether freedom is objective or subjective.

Wicknight wrote: »

And if someone wears a burka? Who does that harm?

Already explained this here.

Wicknight wrote: »

They are no more free after than they were before. All you have done is increase the number of oppressed Muslim women from some to all.

How so? the burka law applies to all, not just muslim women (besides all of them are oppressed already).

robindch

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

Wicknight wrote: »

All you have done is replaced who is oppressing them with regard to what they are supposed to wear.

In the form it's being used here, this argument is quite similar to the "atheism is a religion" one.

Can anybody else see the similarity?

Rev Hellfire

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

Its an interesting sentiment getting expressed here, basically that no one should give up a right regardless of the fact that in doing so you may allows others to freely exercise one or more greater rights.

sink

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

In the form it's being used here, this argument is quite similar to the "atheism is a religion" one.

Can anybody else see the similarity?

No. You seem to be caught in the trap of thinking that everyone thinks like you or else must be forced to. Some people genuinely think that the burka is a good idea, you and I might think their mistaken but they have every right to think that way. You can't force your views on them in the same way they can't force their views on you or anyone else.

It's pretty fundamental for liberalised societies to allow people to make up their own minds. Not allowing people to make up their own minds, even if that practice is harmful to themselves, is oppression.

Rev Hellfire

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

sink wrote: »

It's pretty fundamental for liberalised societies to allow people to make up their own minds. Not allowing people to make up their own minds, even if that practice is harmful to themselves, is oppression.

It's been clearly illustrated time and again that that isn't the case, a caring society will also seek to prevent people from harming themselves. Quite the opposite of what you propose, if they wish to damage themselves cast them to the wind.

Society has a duty to protect the vulnerable, even if that means from themselves.

Mark Hamill

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

sink wrote: »

No. You seem to be caught in the trap of thinking that everyone thinks like you or else must be forced to. Some people genuinely think that the burka is a good idea, you and I might think their mistaken but they have every right to think that way. You can't force your views on them in the same way they can't force their views on you or anyone else.

No one is saying that people cannot think that the burka is a good idea. We are saying, though, that they are wrong, we have shown why, and support the legislation against them for for their (and our) own safety.

sink wrote: »

It's pretty fundamental for liberalised societies to allow people to make up their own minds. Not allowing people to make up their own minds, even if that practice is harmful to themselves, is oppression.

And we do it all the time. Drugs are agianst the law. Suicide is against the law. We dont teach creationism in school. People cannot be trusted to always make up their mind in ways that will not be damaging, and sometimes interventions are needed before things go crazy.

sink

I'm religious and support the ban

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It's been clearly illustrated time and again that that isn't the case, a caring society will also seek to prevent people from harming themselves. Quite the opposite of what you propose, if they wish to damage themselves cast them to the wind.

Society has a duty to protect the vulnerable, even if that means from themselves.

BUT HOW DOES SOCIETY PROTECT THE VULNERABLE???? Do they go round banning harmful practices? If someone commits self harm, we don't fine them or throw them in prison. We provide counselling, psychological treatment and education. If they're being bullied we tackle the bullies. It's not too complicated.

Nemi

I'm religious and support the ban

irishconvert wrote: »

Man, you guys are just in complete denial and so weak. Even I as a Muslim I freely admit I hate the burqa. However I respect the decision of a woman to wear it if SHE CHOOSES to do so. You on the other hand dance around every excuse you can think of as why it should be banned, except the real one, you hate it also. The fact you want to ban it brings you so much closer to the leaders of the regimes you love to hate. Maybe you would feel more at home in Saudi Arabia.

I actually think you have a point here. What are we afraid of? I'd take a basic assumption implicit in our outlook to be that people can be trusted to make decisions for themselves. If we genuinely believe that the burka is self-evidently harmful to people who wear it, then surely that would lead us to the conclusion that very few people will opt to wear it.

So all we need to do is leave it to free choice, and let women decide for themselves what they want to do. I'm sure the marketing division of L'Oreal will do everything they can to influence that decision. Why has it got anything to do with us?

robindch wrote: »

The issue is whether or not women are free to wear or not to wear the burqa.

In general, women who subscribe to islam certainly are not free to make an unencumbered choice, and any claim that women are "free" to make this choice is at best naive and at worst, in denial of the fairly basic facts of the matter.

This seems to be the point that is presented as not being answered by opponents of the ban.

For my part, the thought that occurs is that most burqa wearers are not living in Europe, and probably (as robindch suggests) are in a situation where they could not be described as making an unencumbered choice.

However, we are talking about regulations we apply here. A woman wearing a burqa in Ireland is not subject to the same societal pressure. At least some of the women doing it seem to be Western converts. So, for at least some, it seems to be an entirely free choice. So, by banning it, we actually are saying that we don't like the outcome of their free choices. That's not a situation I'm comfortable with.

Some women are feckin eejits. But that's not an offence, yet. You'll find "harem pants" on sale at the moment. What do you make of a woman who freely chooses to wander around in a garment associated with being the sexual thrall of a sultan? Once we accept that some women are clueless, where exactly do we stop micro-managing their lives?

If this ban was applied in Ireland could I, as a male atheist, go about in a burka? If not, why not?

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

In the form it's being used here, this argument is quite similar to the "atheism is a religion" one.

Can anybody else see the similarity?

I can't.

Is this law dictating to Muslim women what they can and cannot wear? Is it is (it is) how is this any different to a Muslim man dictating to to a Muslim woman what they can and cannot wear?

I swear I'm living in Animal Farm :pac:

The State:
Muslim women, you are free now! You do not have to subject yourselves to the oppression of Muslim men and the Muslim religion. They want to tell you how to behave, what to wear and what to think. But you are free individuals, you can now choose to do what you want, to wear what you want and to think what you want! We will protect your freedom here in the West.

Muslim Woman:
That is great. But I like my religion's views and I want to wear a burka, so I'm going to choose to continue to do so.

The State:
Don't be silly. You are free now, and being free means choosing not to wear a burka. Choosing to wear a burka means choosing to be oppressed. You only want to wear it because you have been brain washed by Muslim men telling you what to wear and what to think.

Muslim Woman:
No really, I like my religion and I want to please my god. I would like to wear the burka. Don't I have this choice? I thought you said I was free now?

The State:
You are free. But part of being free is choosing the correct thing. You have a choice so long as you choose what we want you to Obviously, due to your oppression at the hands of Islam with Muslim men always telling you what to think and do, you have been brainwashed and I'm afraid cannot be trusted to freely choose the correct thing to do. Because of this we have made this decision for you and will now make it illegal for you to choose the wrong decision. This is to protect your freedoms and to stop oppression. You can thank us later

sink

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Drugs are agianst the law.

And what a success that has been. No one takes drugs anymore and our streets have never been safer.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Suicide is against the law.

It would be a good policy to fine people who attempt suicide and throw them in jail.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We dont teach creationism in school.

We don't teach children to wear the burka in school either.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

People cannot be trusted to always make up their mind in ways that will not be damaging, and sometimes interventions are needed before things go crazy.

So we should fine them and throw them in prison before they harm themselves?

strobe

I'm religious and support the ban

magicbastarder wrote: »

kinda hard to address that claim when the counter-argument is simply 'wearing burka'='brainwashed'. as happened when i posted the NY times article which purported to show two women who chose to wear it.

Seeing as I was the one that addressed it I have to say my counter argument was directly related to the woman you quoted from the article. Using her own words and situation. Please don't make reference to things I have said and apply a different meaning to them.

My point was you said "this blows the whole brain washing thing out of the water" or something similar because she didn't have strict religious parents. I was just pointing out that wasn't the case. If you had said "this woman wasn't conditioned from birth to believe wearing the burqa was what she had to do" I wouldn't have even referenced your post.

The second thing about her work collegues suddenly going from people that kept sexually harrasing her, to people with this great respect for her intelect due to the burqa was just gibberish. She quit the job at the same time she started wearing the burqa.

My comments were specific to the woman in the article you were quoting. In her case, from what was written in the article, from her own words, I don't think it's that big of a leap at all to suggest that left to her own devices she more than likely would never have put on a burqa.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Society has a duty to protect the vulnerable, even if that means from themselves.

Funny, that is what the Muslims say :rolleyes:

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

I'm [pleasantly] surprised at Americans feelings on a ban.... http://pewglobal.org/2010/07/08/widespread-support-for-banning-full-islamic-veil-in-western-europe/

strobe

I'm religious and support the ban

Just to clarify my own position on the ban.....I don't support it. I am just as opposed to when the state stick thier filthy little fingers into peoples personal lives as I am to when religions do it. Both do so at the expense of individual liberty in order to strenghten their own particular form of control.

One of them said it didn't they "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest".

This ban is just the king getting one over on the priest.

sink

I'm religious and support the ban

Scotty # wrote: »

I'm [pleasantly] surprised at Americans feelings on a ban.... http://pewglobal.org/2010/07/08/widespread-support-for-banning-full-islamic-veil-in-western-europe/

I'm not. They have a much better appreciation for freedom of speech than Europe. Europeans approve of banning communicating certain thoughts such as holocaust denial, while Americans would be aghast at the suggestion.

Nemi

I'm religious and support the ban

I know this is whataboutery, but can anyone account for the attention being paid to this burka issue when we've an actual issue of infants being subjected to physical harm when being circumcised for religious reasons. Surely, if we were seeking to prohibit damaging religious practices, this is where we would start.