Burka ban

Morbert

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

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

As Scotty said, it's a law for public decency. By wearing a burka in public one is not being indecent. Additionally, as I said, the burka ban is purportedly in the interests of the women involved, whereas decency legislation is in the interests of everyone but the nudist.

For the third time, that is irrelevant regarding whether or not you were being disingenuous. The public decency laws, even if in the interests of others, instructs people on what they can and cannot wear. Arbitrarily walking down a street wearing nothing but socks, for example, will land you in trouble. So even if you believe there is a qualitative difference between the two laws in terms of justification, they still both serve as instructions on what we can and cannot wear in public.

But this is where your argument topples. Your solution to the problem of "state/community-sanctioned abuse of women" is a state-sanctioned decree to force women not to wear certain clothes. But the solution is worse than the problem. There is no reason to suggest that all women in France are forced to wear the burka (I havent seen evidence that even a majority are) whereas the ban will affect all women. And, as I've said, there's no running from this law.

I have explained to you already (in post #1295), that I, and most pro-ban people, do not see the ban as a solution. We have already seen reports of men who are willing to imprison their wives in houses if they are not allowed to wear the burka. The ban must be part of a larger campaign that targets men who force women to wear the burka, and combats "ghettoisation" and other forces opposing cultural integration.

As for "the majority of women" I mentioned, I meant the majority of women who wear it are forced to. Also, it could very well be the case that french women who wear the burka are not forced to. But I am not convinced that this is the case, due to the history of the burka and the treatment of women in societies who enforce it.

Yes. It's all too easy to dismiss lifestyles you disagree with as the product of "indoctrination". I could just as easily say you're indoctrinated by Christopher Hitchens into supporting New Atheism, and then call for your way of life to be suppresed. The best we can do is offer a broad education to people. The alternative is the majority of citizens suppressing others in an anti-liberty campaign of a scale not seen in Europe since the 40s.

I don't subscribe to Christopher Hitchens's views on God, and I am not a "New Atheist", but anyway:

While it might be easy to dismiss lifestyles as the product of indoctrination, that does not mean all lifestyles aren't. Genuine indoctrination inhibits freedom of choice, and allows societal pressures to develop. I hold that, based on the history of the burka and the associated abuse and imprisonment of women in those societies, we are dealing with a genuine case of both indoctrination and harmful cultural pressure.

This does not mean I think all women in france are forced to wear it. But it does mean that anyone who wears it, by choice or otherwise, is enabling people (usually men) to force women to wear it. So long as the burka is associated with the abuse of women, the wearing of the burka is harmful to others.

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its not been "dismissed" as indoctrination, its been explained why. The opposition has yet to explain why its not indoctrination.

No one is saying we shouldn't educate them as well. But we should ban the burka too, as the indoctrinated women are not going to be interested in or allowed to listen to the education.

Their liberty has been compromised by indoctrination, so this line of reasoning is moot.

If women, who genuinely believe they should wear a veil, or women who are forced to wear a veil, are doing so through indoctrination, then by the same logic, aren't women who are told they should not and can not wear a veil also doing so through indoctrination? I don't see the difference.

Seems to me the logical solution is to allow the individual choose themselves. I realise this may not be practical as who knows who is being forced and who is choosing of free will but that is a separate problem. Banning the garment for everyone is not the solution.

robindch

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

Sad story in from the US where it seems a guy murdered his step daughter for not making the correct individual choice:

http://www.wdam.com/story/14567778/man-kills-stepdaughter-for-not-honoring-muslim-religion

virmilitaris

I've been very divided on this issue and I'm still not certain if its a good thing or not.

What seems to be swaying me is my pakistani friend. He's a lovely man, smart and polite and I can't imagine him forcing his wife or daughters to do anything.

But I do believe his wife and daughters are been oppressed by their culture. He has a Facebook page and the first thing I noticed was that there wasn't a single picture of any of his female relatives. Hundreds of him and his sons and male relations

I don't think the women are allowed to use the internet.

These women are been oppressed by their culture and their religion and the french have decided that its unacceptable in their country. The burka is a symbol of oppression of women and should be banned along with all other symbols of oppression if the majority of that country wishes it.

dead one

virmilitaris wrote: »

I don't think the women are allowed to use the internet.

I think there are black sheep in every community. It isn't wise to pick black sheep in a community and blame whole community for that. Muslim women are using internet.

virmilitaris wrote: »

These women are been oppressed by their culture and their religion and the french have decided that its unacceptable in their country. The burka is a symbol of oppression of women and should be banned along with all other symbols of oppression if the majority of that country wishes it.

Those who oppress women are fools, Muslim women are free to do whatever they wish but within limits as prescribed in Quran. Even Men are also restricted in those Limits. Now if you don't follow those limit than i have turned my face toward west to tell the truth.

Why you can't see your future, where society is going to suicide with your own hand.

Can't guard fair sex except a person bold.

robindch

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

robindch wrote: »

Sad story in from the US where it seems a guy murdered his step daughter for not making the correct individual choice:

http://www.wdam.com/story/14567778/man-kills-stepdaughter-for-not-honoring-muslim-religion

What has that got to do with anything, robin? A man committing murder in the USA over a headscarf?

robindch

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

bluewolf wrote: »

What has that got to do with anything, robin?

One of the reasons I mentioned earlier in this thread is that the decision to wear religious markers is frequently not made freely. In this case -- and I'm assuming that it wasn't the first time that the topic came up with the stepfather -- one person was prepared to murder somebody else in order to force them to do what they wanted. And this wasn't even with the burka, which is typically associated with higher degrees of religious fundamentalism than the scarf. So I'm concluding from this that with the burka, there's likely to be a still higher degree of social coercion going on.

robindch

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

robindch wrote: »

One of the reasons I mentioned earlier in this thread is that the decision to wear religious markers is frequently not made freely. In this case -- and I'm assuming that it wasn't the first time that the topic came up with the stepfather -- one person was prepared to murder somebody else in order to force them to do what they wanted. And this wasn't even with the burka, which is typically associated with higher degrees of religious fundamentalism than the scarf. So I'm concluding from this that with the burka, there's likely to be a still higher degree of social coercion going on.

Well robin, the problem is that you have one particular case here in a completely different country. Nobody argued that burkas are never worn under coercion, so an example of a time when it was doesn't really show anything.

The reason I am asking why this is connected to the ban is that it could not possibly have any effect on murder. In fact, as she was murdered for not wearing a headscarf, and as many examples of abuse or assault have been reported on girls in areas in France not wearing a head covering, the only tenuous connection here seems to be going against your point. Forcing women not to wear certain clothing is not going to prevent them being murdered if their family members are so inclined.

Mark Hamill

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

Scotty # wrote: »

If women, who genuinely believe they should wear a veil, or women who are forced to wear a veil, are doing so through indoctrination, then by the same logic, aren't women who are told they should not and can not wear a veil also doing so through indoctrination? I don't see the difference.

There is a difference, because no-one is indoctrinating women not to wear the burka. An aspect of indoctrination (one that makes it different from plain education) is that indoctrinated people aren't expected (or allowed) to question the thing being indoctrinated in them, they are expected to just accept it without understanding. Women are not expected not to question this law, understanding why is part of the point.

Scotty # wrote: »

Seems to me the logical solution is to allow the individual choose themselves. I realise this may not be practical as who knows who is being forced and who is choosing of free will but that is a separate problem. Banning the garment for everyone is not the solution.

Actually, its (part of) the best solution. We know that the burka is purely indoctrination, as its reasoning is sexist and irrational, that banning it is the only way to make sure that indoctrinated women dont hurt themselves, their (female) children and society by continuing to wear it, as they cant or wont do anything themselves (otherwise they already would have).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

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

bluewolf wrote: »

Forcing women not to wear certain clothing is not going to prevent them being murdered if their family members are so inclined.

Yes, but the oppressors can no longer use the reason "Well, you didn't wear the burka", since the ban now provides plausible deniability to the women who don't wish to wear it, but who are forced to by threat of mental or physical violence. And all the state is doing is removing one of the central legitimating reasons for this violence.

This won't, of course, solve other issues related to oppression of women and it will naturally infringe upon the rights of the women who have made a genuinely unencumbered choice to wear it. Nonetheless, my experience suggests that the number of women in that group is tiny in comparison to the number of women who are not allowed to make an unencumbered choice.

For example, how many times have you heard of a women killing a man for not allowing her to wear the burka?

robindch

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

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Once the issue is tied up with identity, social conditioning, indoctrination, as these things usually are with coercive religion, it becomes harder and harder to establish if choices are freely made.

As I said in the previous message, I'm sure there are women who've made a decent, fair and unencumbered choice to wear the burka (and I don't like that their rights, in this case, are being restricted), but I'm 100% sure that these women are vastly outnumbered by those who've no choice in the matter and whose rights are being restricted more.

In this case, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

See the point I made in the previous post about legitimating reasons.

.

robindch

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

robindch wrote: »

Yes, but the oppressors can no longer use the reason "Well, you didn't wear the burka", since the ban now provides plausible deniability to the women who don't wish to wear it, but who are forced to by threat of mental or physical violence. And all the state is doing is removing one of the central legitimating reasons for this violence.

There was never a legitimate reason for violence in the first place. Violence has not gone from being lawful to outlawed. That did not stop any attackers in the past and it is not going to stop them now. Laws are present in various countries regarding mandatory schooling for children, for example, so there is no legitimate reason for families to pull their daughters out of school at a young age and marry them off. However, it still happens.
"Plausible deniability" is some cold comfort to women who are beaten or killed regardless of the laws.

This won't, of course, solve other issues related to oppression of women and it will naturally infringe upon the rights of the women who have made a genuinely unencumbered choice to wear it. Nonetheless, my experience suggests that the number of women in that group is tiny in comparison to the number of women who are not allowed to make an unencumbered choice.

It won't solve anything except perhaps to assuage the consciences of a few, and provide fuel for others. Nothing will change for these women except harassment from both sides.

For example, how many times have you heard of a women killing a man for not allowing her to wear the burka?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/11/france-bans-burqa-and-niqab
Those women were happy to go out and protest. Or perhaps they are to be undermined further by "they don't know what they want really so we'll tell them"?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mark Hamill

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

bluewolf wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Firstly, Robin said legitimating, not legitimate. Secondly, just because a man may abuse a woman because they avail of some freedom that the man doesn't agree with is no reason not to give the woman the freedom.

bluewolf wrote: »

It won't solve anything except perhaps to assuage the consciences of a few, and provide fuel for others. Nothing will change for these women except harassment from both sides.

Eventually the men will have to give in and let the women live without the burka. The men wont be able to raise the kids and go shopping and all the rest by themselves.

bluewolf wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/11/france-bans-burqa-and-niqab
Those women were happy to go out and protest. Or perhaps they are to be undermined further by "they don't know what they want really so we'll tell them"?

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm beginning to think that the pro burka people have never actually examined the reasoning behind the burka themselves. There is no way that a rational person would freely choose to wear the burka for the reasons commonly associated with it. They are sexist, idiotic and counter productive, and like a lot of religious indoctrination, only benefit the ruling males by asserting their unquestioned power. Either the vast majority of women wearing the burka are indoctrinated, or they severely mentally handicapped. If you disgaree, then try coming up with a single rational reason for women having to wear the burka.

robindch

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

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, perhaps ten years of travelling to countries in which islam is the dominant religion.

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm beginning to think that the pro burka people have never actually examined the reasoning behind the burka themselves....

I don't think anyone here is "pro burka". I'm not anyway. I believe I should be allowed to wear what I want when I go out in public. That is why I am opposed to the ban.

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Yes, perhaps ten years of travelling to countries in which islam is the dominant religion.

Errr, don't know what your definition of evidence is but that's not evidence. Do you have any reputable facts or figures? Surveys? Statistics? Or is it all just "We presume.... "

robindch

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

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm beginning to think that the pro burka people have never actually examined the reasoning behind the burka themselves.

Likewise -- reading back through the thread, there are a lot of posters who appear to consider freedom only in the abstract, without considering the practical implications of it, and how freedom itself can be subverted.

robindch

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

Scotty # wrote: »

Errr, don't know what your definition of evidence is but that's not evidence.

I'm aware of that, though I'd certainly like to hear how much first-hand experience you've had of the many "islamic" countries I've visited, and many people I've spoken with.

How have you come to the conclusion that women who are required, frequently under threat of violence, to wear black sacks when they go outside, are acting "freely"?

Mark Hamill

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

Scotty # wrote: »

I don't think anyone here is "pro burka". I'm not anyway. I believe I should be allowed to wear what I want when I go out in public. That is why I am opposed to the ban.

So its knee jerk libertarianism then?

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

I'm aware of that, though I'd certainly like to hear how much first-hand experience you've had of the many "islamic" countries I've visited, and many people I've spoken with.

I don't need "first hand experience" of anywhere to know that a government telling it's people how to dress is no different to a religion doing the same.

robindch wrote: »

How have you come to the conclusion that women who are required, frequently under threat of violence, to wear black sacks when they go outside, are acting "freely"?

Huh? I'm not saying they are ALL acting freely but some clearly are. There seems to be no information available to indicate in what proportion. So you, like the rest of us, are just guessing at how many are forced to wear it. You don't actually have any evidence? I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong here.

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So its knee jerk libertarianism then?

Huh?!? (AGAIN!)

We've been allowed choose our own clothing for thousands of years. How is being opposed to a stop to this "knee jerk libertarianism"??

robindch

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

Scotty # wrote: »

I don't need "first hand experience"

Scotty # wrote: »

a government telling it's people how to dress is no different to a religion doing the same.

You're really not getting the point of this post from a few minutes ago:

robindch wrote: »

there are a lot of posters who appear to consider freedom only in the abstract, without considering the practical implications of it, and how freedom itself can be subverted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mark Hamill

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

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm beginning to think that the pro burka people

I'm not pro-burka, I'm anti-stupid laws

... have never actually examined the reasoning behind the burka themselves. There is no way that a rational person would freely choose to wear the burka for the reasons commonly associated with it.

I'm beginning to think the same of the opposing side. "I'd never wear one so anyone who does is mentally deficient". Personally I'd never wear a lot of the current fashions, but I'm not going to insist they be banned based on my own personal tastes. Nor am I going to make such an amazing sweeping judgement as to announce that anyone who wears them is mentally unstable.

If you disgaree, then try coming up with a single rational reason for women having to wear the burka.

They want to. End of.

Morbert

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

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is no state compulsion, true, but in countries like France, where "ghettoisation" is a major problem, the same compulsion can manifest locally. The difference between the pro- and anti-ban sides is the former are not convinced the framework for free, unencumbered choice is universally present in these communities, due to the history of violence and oppression towards women these communities have. The ban, while useless on its own, can be part of a larger strategy to tackle the inequality and oppession in these communities, and to force them to integrate into a culture where women are as empowered (in theory) as men. If these communities do become fully integrated, then I will no longer support the ban.

Mark Hamill

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

Scotty # wrote: »

Huh?!? (AGAIN!)

We've been allowed choose our own clothing for thousands of years. How is being opposed to a stop to this "knee jerk libertarianism"??

No-one is being forced to wear specific clothes, just forced to not wear specific clothes, there is an obvious difference.

The "knee jerk libertarianism" bit comes from the blind opposition to governments telling people what to do, especially in situations where you yourself disagree with what those people want to do. I dont see any other way to describe it, many people have entered this argument decrying any government telling its people what to do in total ignorance of the facts. I first asked months ago for someone to give a rational explanation to wear the burka, something that would show that its possible to rationally and freely arrive at the conclusion that women should wear them and I've never gotten a response. Why? Because the issue here isn't whether the burka is good or bad for society, its that some people seem to think that governments dont get a say in peoples daily lives, regardless of what the government is actually trying to say and regardless of the fact that its there damn job.

Mark Hamill

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

Scotty # wrote: »

I don't need "first hand experience" of anywhere to know that a government telling it's people how to dress is no different to a religion doing the same.

Not many governments claim infallibility and dont allow for repeals to laws or judgements.
On a side note, I assume you ignore speed limits, right? Because you wouldn't hold with a government telling you how fast to drive, right?

Scotty # wrote: »

Huh? I'm not saying they are ALL acting freely but some clearly are. There seems to be no information available to indicate in what proportion. So you, like the rest of us, are just guessing at how many are forced to wear it. You don't actually have any evidence? I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong here.

Can you demonstrate how some clearly are acting freely?

Mark Hamill

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

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Never heard someone say you can go to hell for not wearing high heels.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I sincerely hope that you entire position is not that irrational beliefs should be outside the remit of law if they are religiously based.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In your view, that man who shot his step daughter was in the right, because to not do so would violate his religious conscience.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Never heard someone tell anyone they would go to hell if they didn't wear a bikini.
These silly bikini or high heel analogies seem to be missing the fact that we dont educate girls in school that they have to wear these clothes or they will go to hell. The highest level of authority that drives women to these is peer pressure, there is no governmental or religious drive fro them, so the analogies are ridiculously inapt.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Have you ever interviewed anyone who wears the burka? Its getting incredibly annoying for the pro burka libertarian side to continue to ask us if we have interviewed a burka wearer when they themselves cant even offer an explanation for why someone would want to wear one.