Burka ban

Zombrex

MrPudding wrote: »

The state, well the UK anyway and others I am sure, already does make decisions like this.

Perhaps not for a slap on the behind as in your example, but certainly for other consensual acts, even perhaps a gentle slap on the behind, dependant on circumstances.

MrP

For adults or for children?

Zombrex

barochoc wrote: »

You don't read much do you?

You don't know much about what the burka represents either?

These women (The vast majority) DON'T wear it by choice. It is forced upon them as they as considered somewhere along the lines of dirt by many males in their society.

And?

Removing freedoms because you have decided no one really wants them is ok is it? The Muslims have a silly reason to force women to behave the way they want but you have a good reason to force women to behave the way you want so that makes it ok?

You complain about Muslim countries trying to force women to do things a particular way and then propose we force women to do things a particular way.

By the sounds of it you would quite enough Muslim countries.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iXTeJXk6d0HDxNRKn-1F_PM0GvSgD9H3008G0

MrPudding

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

Wicknight wrote: »

For adults or for children?

Both, believe it or not. Obviously they are more intrusive in matters regarding children or vulnerable adults, but they have been known to interfere in matters between consenting adults.

With respect to battery they will stick their oar in when they can see no societal need or improvement for the particular activity. It is an intrusion of personal autonomy, but there you are.

So with respect to the burka, at least from a UK perspective, it could probably be argued that as they already interfere in matters that an adult has consented to, a ban on the wearing of the burka could be an extension of existing judicial behaviour. That is, of course, leaving aside the fact that many, myself included (believe it or not,) doubt the validity of a woman’s (or at least a subset of burka wearer’s) consent with respect to wearing it. It seems like a bit of a Hobson’s choice to me.

MrP

Cú Giobach

I'm religious and support the ban

If the regime in Leinster House try to bring in this i will personally start going shopping in a Burka,(i'm a bloke) and happily go to jail for it.
In this society and any other self respecting western democracy, the government has absolutly NO right to tell any person what they can and can't wear.
To me this has nothing to do with religion but a hell of a lot to do with the slow but sure erosion of personal freedom.
When its cold I wear a hat and scarf leaving only my eyes showing and I have the right to wear a black cape with that if I want.
When the nazi government (I'm not invoking godwins law here) tried to introduce the yellow star in Denmark practically the whole population Jewish or not came out wearing it. I would hope something similar would happen here with a burka ban.
Shame on the Belgians and the French.
Be warned people, don't allow this kind of control get a foothold here....

Rev Hellfire

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

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Be warned people, don't allow this kind of control get a foothold here....

All I have to say is smoking ban.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

you're clutching at straws if you're trying to draw a comparison there.

Cú Giobach

I'm religious and support the ban

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

All I have to say is smoking ban.

ARRRGGGGHH........:mad: (typing madly in a cloud of smoke).
Thanks for reminding me of that...I'm now going to pop off and cry quietly to myself....

Mark Hamill

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

Wicknight wrote: »

This law doesn't address that, in simply compounds it.

It is surrendering that these women cannot and never will be able to make their own mind up and is simply forcing them to do what we think is the correct thing.

So? This is done all the time. Have you ever been in a mental institute or a prison? Have you ever seen a parent tell a child to eat their vegtables?

Wicknight wrote: »

They are allowed to. The State cannot determine if someone is making an informed free choice or not. It cannot assume to.

Yes it can, again it does so all the time. Children can not make free choices in the eyes of the law.

Wicknight wrote: »

I slapped my girlfriend on the bum this morning. I did it in a playful fashion that she was perfectly happy with.

Imagine if the State decided that it, rather my girlfriend, would decide if it was or wasn't a playful act or act of violence. If she said it wasn't an act of violence the State decided that she cannot be trusted to accurately represent the case because she is brainwashed.

It would be up to the state to show this, and in the case of the burka this is the case.

Wicknight wrote: »

If the State cannot tell the difference between oppression and free choice the State should not act. Assuming that we know better is a ridiculous and dangerous act.

We do it all the time. This is what laws are for. We as a society, decide what is best and make them law, this is not new.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is because in a free society you should not ban ideas, even if you disagree with them.

So our alterntative is to ban the acts that we deem as wrong, like lynching people with different coloured skin because someone beleives they are inferior.

Mark Hamill

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

Cú Giobach wrote: »

In this society and any other self respecting western democracy, the government has absolutly NO right to tell any person what they can and can't wear.

Here is a link to the acts of the oireachtas, all the enactments the irish government have made into law since 1922. Seems to me the government have been telling people what to do in a great many contexts for a long long time, why should what we wear not also be covered (forget the burka for a moment, just in principle).

Cú Giobach

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

why should what we wear not also be covered .

No pun intended??????


Just because a government legislates something it doesn't make it right to have done so.
It is up to us the people and the supposed real power in a democracy to decide for ourselves how we are governed and what laws we want.
This unfortunately seems to slipping away and it is up to us to call a halt before its too late. We really need to open our eyes and see whats happening
I'm not a conspiracy nut, I just really believe in Demokratia (greek; rule of the people) in its real form.
If the Irish people decide that burkas are unacceptable then so be it but that would be to me and many other people a total infringement of basic human rights and something to be totally ashamed of.
If a woman wants to cover her whole body in such a garment then what right does any other person have to tell her she can't.

Moomoo1

I'm religious and support the ban

barochoc wrote: »

Absolutely appalled that people in here don't support this ban. The sooner the better.

My girlfriend can't walk around in a Muslim country without at least covering up, mainly because she's a 2nd class citizen. But they can come here & expect to do as they wish & stick to their beliefs.

If you want to wear a Burka, stay in your own country. If you don't, you're welcome to come here.

Oh, and while you're here, please refrain from complaining about the Angelus at 6PM every day on RTE 1 before the news. It's just a tradition for the catholics in this country. Yeas that's right, tradition.

So you want us to emulate nasty Muslim regimes and start banning things?

Our traditions are that you can wear whatever the hell you like, as long as it covers the private parts. People arguing against the ban are just defending our traditions.

Mark Hamill

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

Cú Giobach wrote: »

No pun intended??????


Just because a government legislates something it doesn't make it right to have done so.

That is irrelevent to the point you made first. The government has the right to legislate ont hings, that is part of its job, to make rules ot keep the country running. That its legislation is poor is no reason to say it shouldn't.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

It is up to us the people and the supposed real power in a democracy to decide for ourselves how we are governed and what laws we want.
This unfortunately seems to slipping away and it is up to us to call a halt before its too late. We really need to open our eyes and see whats happening
I'm not a conspiracy nut, I just really believe in Demokratia (greek; rule of the people) in its real form.

I believe that people should make decisions with all the information made available. Women who want to wear the burka do not have all te information, as they have indoctrinated to ignore the information that would be damaging to their oppressors dominance over them. The people here against the ban seem to be just ignoring important issues under the baffling impression that anyone can do anything they want and that things only influence things directly next to them.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

If the Irish people decide that burkas are unacceptable then so be it but that would be to me and many other people a total infringement of basic human rights and something to be totally ashamed of.
If a woman wants to cover her whole body in such a garment then what right does any other person have to tell her she can't.

This point was covered ad naseum in the thread already.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I believe that people should make decisions with all the information made available. Women who want to wear the burka do not have all te information, as they have indoctrinated to ignore the information that would be damaging to their oppressors dominance over them.

you're having your cake and eating it here. you refuse to accept that someone with a dramatically different worldview to your own is entitled to their opinion, so you keep trotting out this line that they do not know their own mind. which is an incredibly disingenuous position to take.

i've seen no proof that this 'a burka wearer, by definition, is not qualified to make their own mind up' stance has any bearing in reality; you keep repeating it and as far as i'm concerned, you believe it because you want to (which is ironic given the context) because it's what makes most sense to you.

it's breathtakingly arrogant for you to use a judgement call of your own to dictate behaviour to someone else, especially with a solution so blunt and with so many questions concerning efficacy.

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So? This is done all the time.

So it isn't liberating them or freeing them from oppression. It is simply swapping on form of oppression for another because both sides believe the woman is incapable of making her own mind up and therefore the decision must be made for her.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes it can, again it does so all the time. Children can not make free choices in the eyes of the law.

I hardly think it needs to be said but Muslim women are not children.

If you treat them as such you can't also pretend you are liberating them.

The logic that they are incapable of making their own choices is the logic behind the burka in the first place.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So our alterntative is to ban the acts that we deem as wrong, like lynching people with different coloured skin because someone beleives they are inferior.

Yes. You will notice that lynching a black man is illegal, being black in Southern USA isn't (despite risk of lynching).

The burka ban is like banning black people from going to Alabama under the logic that no black person would ever freely choose to go there so if they are there they must be there under duress and therefore they should be arrested.

Cú Giobach

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill said;
That is irrelevent to the point you made first. The government has the right to legislate ont hings, that is part of its job, to make rules ot keep the country running. That its legislation is poor is no reason to say it shouldn't.

Yes it is, it was a reply to your comment;
QUOTE; "Seems to me the government have been telling people what to do in a great many contexts for a long long time, why should what we wear not also be covered (forget the burka for a moment, just in principle)."

A government that legislates poorly should not be in power and should be removed from office.

Women who want to wear the burka do not have all te information,

An assumption on your part and I can assure you not all women who wear burkas are doing so because they are opressed or because they dont have the ability to think for themselves.
In fact Many many women choose to wear a burka because they want to.

This point was covered ad naseum in the thread already.

Of course, because that is what the thread is about.

Eliot Rosewater

I'm religious and support the ban

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

All I have to say is smoking ban.

I didn't realise that standing in the same room as someone with a burqa had a negative impact upon my health.

The smoking ban only applies to indoor premises; the burqa ban is total.

Trying to compare it with the smoking ban is grasping at straws.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

i was talking to the boards admins, and they tell me that they're considering instituting infractions as a standard response to anyone posting to boards while wearing a burka.

Cú Giobach

I'm religious and support the ban

magicbastarder wrote: »

i was talking to the boards admins, and they tell me that they're considering instituting infractions as a standard response to anyone posting to boards while wearing a burka.

Thats me gone then :D

Moomoo1

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We do it all the time. People cannot be have complete freedom as they will not hesitate to step on other peoples human rights. We have to balance what people get to do with how it effects everyone else.

you misunderstood me. My point was that AS LONG AS people's freedoms do not step on the freedoms of others/cause harm to themselves and others they should be allowed. This is one such case.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its not just wearing the garment. Its what wearing the garment represents. Wearing a white sheet over your head means very little, but wear one of these:

in full support of the ideals it represents, and you do hurt society.

freedom of expression takes precedence over this 'not hurting of society'. As the old quote goes, democracy is how free your opponent is to speak.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Stop trying to boil my points down to something they are not. Everyone is coerced into everything. There are over 6 billion people in the world, all climbing over each other top get what we want, all interacting with each other, all influencing each other. Coercion is inevitable. But there is a difference between the coercionwhere you stop someone speeding in order to protect people and where you coerce someone into wearing a demeaning garment in order to dominate them. Why you coerce is key.

my point is that if you read a book and somewhere in the book it says 'you must wear this' and you wear it then that's not the sort of coercion we should be legislating against. What if I don't find a garment demeaning and don't feel dominated? Why should I be prevented from wearing it?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No-one is forcing them to stay at home.

just like no one is forcing them to wear the burka at the moment. Same principle! You've just destroyed your own 'coercion' argument in favour of the ban!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

She will have to start question her preconceptions. (1)

But that suggests that she has a free choice to question her preconceptions. But if she does, surely she has a free choice to question the wearing of the burka? So she's not being coerced?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The burka ban will do more good than harm.

that's what you are trying to prove, you can't use it as an argument.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You have not been coerced into wearing the kit under the promise of an eternity of pain and suffereing, so not really complaring like with like.


As above.

maybe I am coerced? How do you know? And do I not have free choice to reject the burka anyway, just like you say above at (1)?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There is a difference between free speech and freedom of consequence. You can show support for whatever you like, but society is allowed to then say that you are wrong and will not be tollerated.

but it's not allowed to gag you. That's anti-democratic. Democracy is about how free your opponent is to speak.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You cannot know everyones case for everything.

precisely. So for all you know the majority of burka wearers would be worse off under the ban?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No. By making it more difficult, we are forcing these women (and their families) to actually think about their situations and the rules they live by. This will strengthen them. Its like how you add weights to a work to make it harder, it will just make you stronger.

prove it. I say that you will just make their lives a misery and force them into emigrating back to where they came from, and being oppressed there 100 times more.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Heard of boxing, have you?

that takes place with all sorts of medical checks and help on hand. Apples and oranges. And many want boxing banned.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not just talking about the violent issues. There are also issues of equality in law and in church.

the ban will do nothing about those. It will just radicalise those people further.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Religious biasism then.


My girlfriend is muslim, so dont presume to make judgements on people to support your own religious biases. I dont dislike muslims and I dont want muslims to leave europe (even if I did dislike them, it would be awfully short sighted of me to want to send them to countries where their beliefs, so dislike by me, would just be unquestioningly supported. Better to have them here and drive them to change).

you won't drive them to change like that. And should people be driven to change by banning things anyway? Should we not respect their freedom of choice not to be driven to change? Let's enforce our existing laws against violence and denial of freedom, for sure. But at some point you have to trust people to make a free choice of what they want without you telling them what they can or can't want.

And don't come back with 'so you want to legalise drugs then'? Wearing a burka is not directly harmful to your health like taking drugs.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And how do we do that? These people cannot get out of their domineering families? Should we investigate every burka wearing family as a matter of procedure, cause I'm sure they would love that.


Maybe I'm just going blind, but you will need to point out the page in the link that supports your claim that "Thousands of muslim women in france go and seek help, but the resources are so stretched that not a lot can be done."

the support structure are inadequate, that's widely acknowledged. Anyway, that's a different argument.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are ignoring my point. Flagelation is abuse, but if we convince someone to do it themsleves then they wont see it as abuse. The burka is they same. Its not physical abuse, but it is still abuse of their femininity and individuality.

alcohol is a much worse abuse and yet we allow it. Why? Because people need to be free to abuse themselves up to a certain point. Also, there's not enough of a consensus on burka being abuse, whereas everyone agrees that alcohol is a dangerous drug.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I already did. Can you prove they are wearing it willingly? Without any coercion from people playing on their fears, basing it on their unquestining subserviance and acceptance?

you did not prove it. It's impossible to prove it. Unless the coercion is physical. You said 'the religious texts say it must be worn, and so that's coercion'. But it's not. By that logic any sort of belief we hold is coercion. By that logic we wouldn't be able to get out of bed because any action will be taken due to some opinion and belief and be coercive.

so you did not prove that they are not wearing it willingly, and the burden of proof is always on the people trying to ban things.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you think if we continue on without banning it that mulsim husbands will change?

no. And this legislation won't change them. You address the root, not the symptom.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you honetsly think they wont at least question why the government is questioning the burka? That this line of questioning wont lead thme to discussing the burka itself? Sure, there indoctrination may not let reach any signoficant conclusion, but its better then doing nothing.

you are still contradicting yourself. You say 'here are those oppressed people who cannot break away from their indoctrination, so much so that I consider that indoctrination to be coercion'. And then you say 'but if we ban the burka they will all question the indoctrination and break away'. Do you see the problem?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Who is trying to eradicate religion?

attacking religion makes it stronger. The Soviet experiment showed that.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ah so you are starting to figure it all out.


Should I respect a pedophiles choice to have sex with kids? A bankers choice to fiddle his books and cause a recession? I respect peoples right to make a choice, but I also respect their right to be wrong in that choice and to be prevented from acting out on it.

apples and oranges again... wearing things does not affect other people in the way you describe.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ah the arrogance card, I was wondering when this theistic jem was going to turn up. So is it arrogant for a doctor to tell a patient that he is wrong to want to use an empty homeopathic sugar pill to treat his illness instead of tried and tested medicine? Sometimes its not arrogance, sometimes (about 99% or the time) people just make stupid decisions because they dont have all the evidence.

and sometimes people make decisions whilst having all the evidence. And you need to respect that, which you do not. If you want them to have evidence, give them evidence, and then if they still want to wear the garment let them be.Listen, you think the way every totalitarian state thought. 'We will do this because people are too stupid to act in their own good.'. No, just no. We've been there and we don't want to go there again.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Did rowling publish any book stating that the punishment for not wearing a hat is eternity in hell? Actually just to be sure, you do know where the burka comes from right? The middle eastern wahabi uprise in islamic culture their, which wanted to drive out what it saw as the unclean western influence and bring far more literal interpretation of the quran and oppressive dominance of the people. This is thre source of the burka. You can tell the difference between this uprising in these misgynistic retarding barbarians and a women who never once claimed her kids book was anything but fiction, right? Right?

That does not excuse you from respecting people's right to wear the burka. Just like alcohol-related deaths do not excuse you from respecting people's rights to have a drink. And alcohol is so, so much more harmful.

I could go into a huge discussion into the evils of Western imperialism and how we treasure the symbols of that imperialism to this day, but that's off-topic.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

All unrational and unquestioned beliefs undermine society. That includes religion. (tbh, most people question santa as they grow up, so he is not a bad case)

those beliefs are part of human nature itself. Take them away, restrict them and you go against what people are. You cannot do that.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Maybe, but its a chance we have to make. Doing nothing is hardly going to weaken these world views.

it's not a chance, it's a certainty, proved again and again in history. You persecute a religious minority and you make them more zealous.

Moomoo1

I'm religious and support the ban

Wicknight wrote: »

So it isn't liberating them or freeing them from oppression. It is simply swapping on form of oppression for another because both sides believe the woman is incapable of making her own mind up and therefore the decision must be made for her.

that's exactly what it is. So those women are oppressed by their families AND by the state now.

Rev Hellfire

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

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I didn't realise that standing in the same room as someone with a burqa had a negative impact upon my health.

The smoking ban only applies to indoor premises; the burqa ban is total.

Trying to compare it with the smoking ban is grasping at straws.

I think you missed my point, my fault I should have said it more directly.
Basically the Irish people do not protest in any meaningful manner.
That's not to doubt that some will protest such a ban, but the majority will not even in cases where it will effect them en-mass, much less for the 'rights' of some disconnected individuals who have removed themselves from the greater society.

Such a ban can come into effect and the majority will simply not care.

robindch

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

Wicknight wrote: »

You complain about Muslim countries trying to force women to do things a particular way and then propose we force women to do things a particular way.

Yes, because islam started the forcing. The state is simply stepping in to reassert a right that has been forcibly removed.

Claiming that the state's reassertion of this stolen right is equivalent to the stealing of that right in the first place is quite disingenuous and -- casting about for a similar example -- is not unlike saying that the UN's declaration of war on Iraq was as dishonorable as Iraq's on Kuwait.

There is a history, a political context and a clear reason for this ban, all of which are ignored by the ban's detractors who instead stick to the doctrinaire view that the appearance of a free choice is the one human right that must never be abridged, and fail to give any realistic consideration to the coercive social conditions under which that choice was made, or what its unhappy consequences are.

robindch

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

Moomoo1 wrote: »

My point was that AS LONG AS people's freedoms do not step on the freedoms of others/cause harm to themselves and others they should be allowed.

So, you believe that people should have the freedom to force women to wear burqas?

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

if the pope deemed tomorrow that women have to wear trousers, and skirts are not allowed, we'd have to ban women wearing trousers to protect brainwashed catholic women.

i really should start my own religion.

Mark Hamill

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're having your cake and eating it here. you refuse to accept that someone with a dramatically different worldview to your own is entitled to their opinion, so you keep trotting out this line that they do not know their own mind. which is an incredibly disingenuous position to take.

No its not. I've shown how the position is irrational on a personal basis and I've shown how the instigators of the positions are enforcing it purely to enforce their own dominance. I have looked at this particular situation and made a rational opinion on what I saw. This constant attempting to boil me down as being intollerant for simply calling a spade a spade is childish and does nothing for your argument.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've seen no proof that this 'a burka wearer, by definition, is not qualified to make their own mind up' stance has any bearing in reality; you keep repeating it and as far as i'm concerned, you believe it because you want to (which is ironic given the context) because it's what makes most sense to you.

Yeah, its not like I havent explained in a logical and rational way the impotence of the burka if you take it at face value and the actual nature of the barbarian misogynists who indoctrinate people into accepting it. Oh wait, I did.

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's breathtakingly arrogant for you to use a judgement call of your own to dictate behaviour to someone else, especially with a solution so blunt and with so many questions concerning efficacy.

I can only come to the conclusion that you have no parents, have never been to school and have never actually come into contact with anyone ever, if you think its arrogant to tell someone what to do.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yeah, its not like I havent explained in a logical and rational way

you've explained your reasoning. i've not seen any proof of your conjectures. as such, i will accord it as much weight as i would any other opinion expressed without proof.

if you want to equate dictating behaviour to adults with parenting or schooling practices, fine. i hope you realise what that does to the credibility of your argument?

Mark Hamill

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

Wicknight wrote: »

So it isn't liberating them or freeing them from oppression. It is simply swapping on form of oppression for another because both sides believe the woman is incapable of making her own mind up and therefore the decision must be made for her.

Wicknight wrote: »

I hardly think it needs to be said but Muslim women are not children.

If you treat them as such you can't also pretend you are liberating them.

Well why not? With kids we recognise that they cannot be trusted to make important decisions on their own, so we dont let them. But we do teach them how, so that they can eventually do the same.

Wicknight wrote: »

The logic that they are incapable of making their own choices is the logic behind the burka in the first place.

No its not. We can show the lack of informed thought in th eburks. We can see where it originated (in the desire for power for misogynistic men) and we can see how the women wearing it do not apply logical or rational thought to the reasoning they have brought up with. If women came up with the burka themselves, then it wouldn't be an issue, it would be someone hurting themselves and no-one else. But the burka is a tool for power for those men and the women using the tool, use in the name of these men.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes. You will notice that lynching a black man is illegal, being black in Southern USA isn't (despite risk of lynching).

The burka ban is like banning black people from going to Alabama under the logic that no black person would ever freely choose to go there so if they are there they must be there under duress and therefore they should be arrested.

Banning the burka is like banning the lynching of black people just because you think your god wants you to.

Mark Hamill

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

Cú Giobach wrote: »

A government that legislates poorly should not be in power and should be removed from office.

Thats a different thing entirely to saying that a government never has the right to legislate on something.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

An assumption on your part and I can assure you not all women who wear burkas are doing so because they are opressed or because they dont have the ability to think for themselves.
In fact Many many women choose to wear a burka because they want to.

Can you give me a rational and logical reason to wear the burka? One that shows that they have all the information?

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Yes, because islam started the forcing. The state is simply stepping in to reassert a right that has been forcibly removed.

But what "right" is being reasserted? The right to be forced not wear a burka? That isn't a right.

The right is to choose whether or not to wear the burka. If the state decides for you it is no more of a right than it is a right with a Muslim man deciding for you.

If in neither instances you end up with the Muslim woman having more empowerment to choose for herself you have not reasserted any rights.

robindch wrote: »

Claiming that the state's reassertion of this stolen right is equivalent to the stealing of that right in the first place is quite disingenuous and -- casting about for a similar example -- is not unlike saying that the UN's declaration of war on Iraq was as dishonorable as Iraq's on Kuwait.

I don't see the connection. The UN represented Kuwait. This ban does not represent Muslim women.

It is far closer to something like France and America fighting over native Americans when the native Americas would actually just like them to leave and let them do their own thing.

Again what right is being reasserted? This is what I mean earlier with the wood for the trees. Because someone is not wearing a burka doesn't mean in of itself they are any freer. Katie Homes doesn't wear a burka, she still seems totally oppressed by Tom Cruises religious views.

The right that is being removed from the women is the right to choose.

This law does not reassert that right. The woman is in no more of a position to choose than they were before and as such no more liberated than where they were before.