Burka ban

Mark Hamill

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

bluewolf wrote: »

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

I'm just anti stupidity.

bluewolf wrote: »

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.

The problem with this is that the other side has either been to countries where the burka has been enforced, or they have read up on the reasoning (hence the examples from various muslim countries and the detailed explanations of why the burka is completely flawed).

bluewolf wrote: »

They want to. End of.

Ah, so you cant think of a single rational reason for why someone should want to wear the burka and you yourself are not pro burka (I assume you accept that it has a negative effect on a womans place in society and therefore society itself?) but you think none of that matters since these indoctrinated women, from years of being told they will go to hell if they dont wear the burka because of how they encourage uncontrollable lust in men even with just their faces, say they want to? Seriously, has no one ever heard of battered person syndrome?

robindch

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

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I didn't say I knew all about it. I am claiming that I know enough about it to be able to judge to my evidential standards, with a sufficient degree of confidence, that it is oppressive to the women concerned.

How have you decided that it's not oppressive?

And that the clear and evident lack of freedom that women have in countries where islam is dominant, and which is replicated in the splintered, inward-looking communities that encourage burkination in other countries, actually constitutes "freedom", something which, I take it, you support?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mark Hamill

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

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because their clothes, as symbols and tools of sexist oppression, hurt society. Also, the lack of rational explanation for the burka points to a lack of rational thought in the choice to wear it, which supports our accusation of the women who do wear being oppress and indoctrinated into doing so (no rational reason therefore the women are being irrational, add that to the inept and sexist religious justification for the burka and you have oppression as the only driving force).

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I dont follow why something being against someones religious conscious should hold sway on whether or not laws can be made for or against it, hence I made a reductio ad absurdum.

Permabear wrote: »

Christian missionaries, who deplored the "ungodly" practice of women going bare-chested, played a significant role in making breast concealment a cultural norm in areas of the world where toplessness was once commonplace. A couple of decades ago, if not still today, Irish girls would most certainly have emerged from their Catholic convent schools with the impression that any female who did not wear a top in public was going straight to hell. So, I don't think it's a silly analogy at all. There's a direct historical connection between Christian teaching and the cultural practice of covering women's breasts, just as there is a connection between Islamic teaching and the cultural tradition of covering the female hair and (sometimes) face.

You would have a point if not for the fact that the bra has a functional use (comfort) and for the fact that nudity is not illegal in Ireland (yes its not culturally prevalent because of our history, but its also not illegal).

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You seem to be unable to demonstrate even a single example of someone who freely chooses to wear the burka with no indoctrination or coercion, until you do, my explanations for why the burka is oppressive and coercive stand up.
Also, drop the racism angle, its incredibly hypocritical. I'm not racist towards muslim women because a) only some muslim women wear the burka, most wear the hijab or other form of headscarf and I've no problem with it and b) my girlfriend of nearly three years is muslim.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Do your self a favour and read up on Battered person syndrome. People can and have fought tooth and nail to protect the very people who abuse them. No matter how loud their protest, it can never drown out the total lack of rationality.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The problem is that the world isn't as black and white. Its all well and good us standing back and not interfering, it does nothing to stop the interfering of the men and cultures and religions that use these tools of oppression and control for power.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You are spectacularly missing the point and the context. If there was a good chance that these women where not being indoctrinated in some way, then yes, no rational explanation would be needed. However, IMO, that chance is nearly non existent, for reasoning I've explained before. Now I'm open to being wrong, I may not have heard all the reasoning, so I want a way to test if these women could be making free choices. It occurs to me that with all the women in world wearing the burka, that if the majority where making the choice freely, then there must be a rational reason behind it, otherwise its a case of the majority freely making an irrational decision which would imply that there is something wrong with their mental faculties. So, given the lack of a rational reason, it looks to me like two options, the women who wear the burka are either intellectually capable but indoctrinated, or intellectual challenged and free (they cant be intellectual capable and free, otherwise they would have a rational reason for their actions, one that avoids the sexist and oppressive damage that the burka brings).

Valmont

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It occurs to me that with all the women in world wearing the burka, that if the majority where making the choice freely, then there must be a rational reason behind it, otherwise its a case of the majority freely making an irrational decision which would imply that there is something wrong with their mental faculties. So, given the lack of a rational reason, it looks to me like two options, the women who wear the burka are either intellectually capable but indoctrinated, or intellectual challenged and free (they cant be intellectual capable and free, otherwise they would have a rational reason for their actions, one that avoids the sexist and oppressive damage that the burka brings).

Your use of the term "rational" seems to be slightly arbitrary, to what universal standards of rationality must we subscribe? Who is the authority on this? You? Western governments?

Some people would find it very hard to understand the reasons a boxer would put forth for having his head thumped for fun. So given my inability to understand why people engage in dangerous activities, can I assume that they are intellectually capable but indoctrinated (a specious use of the term I think) or just plain old intellectually challenged?

This logic is simply patrionising and haughty in the truest sense of the words. I can't think of a rational reason (as if such an objective code of rationality exists) as to why somebody is doing something so therefore they must be indoctrinated or mentally deficient. Elitist madness.

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The "knee jerk libertarianism" bit comes from the blind opposition to governments telling people what to do...
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?

Now you are being ridiculous. No one in this thread has promoted 'blind opposition' to anything.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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

Millions... Billions of people on this planet live their lives based on the belief that certain actions they take will lead them to hell. Sex before marriage, homosexuality, working on a Sunday...

Are we to tell all these people that they are victims of indoctrination and force them to go against their beliefs? Or is it only Islam?

I think most of the French ban (if not all of it) stems from the fact that the non-Islam French just don't want to see these people. They don't like being reminded that there is an Islam community within their own. They couldn't give a toss what these women put on their heads as long as they don't do it in front of them. That's the real motive for the ban. Let's be honest about it. It has nothing to do with the welfare of the woman in question. Is has to do with OUR un-comfortableness at seeing these people in public.

Moomoo1

I'm religious and 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

very sad story, but surely this is more suited to the 'let's ban guns' forum than 'let's ban the burka' forum?

if some psycho murders me for not wearing a hat, does this mean hats should be banned?

what if he shoots me for not wearing a christian cross?

Moomoo1

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You seem to be unable to demonstrate even a single example of someone who freely chooses to wear the burka with no indoctrination or coercion, until you do, my explanations for why the burka is oppressive and coercive stand up. .

we gave you lots of examples, you chose to ignore them:

-christian converts to islam
-orthodox jewish women
-muslim women who wear the burka because of their faith

Moomoo1

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ah, so you cant think of a single rational reason for why someone should want to wear the burka

I can. Belief. Same reason that Christian women wear the cross

Or do you want to forbid Christians from wearing religious symbols too? Wait, you don't? And you say you are not anti-Muslim?

Moomoo1

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

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.

the person trying to subvert freedom is you

it's about time you've faced that fact

Moomoo1

I'm religious and 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.

and many people are assaulted _for_ wearing a headscarf. There have been reports in the UK of women having their headscarves and burkas ripped off by nationalist white youths.

so social coercion works both ways, right?

Moomoo1

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There is a difference, because no-one is indoctrinating women not to wear the burka.

What?

Look around you. See what image of a woman Western culture projects. And you are saying that Muslim women in Ireland aren't indoctrinated by that?

Capitalist indoctrination, by companies trying to push their latest clothing range or their latest hit single is much higher than anything religion can put up in this country.That is why 9/10 Muslims get westernised so quickly.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

yammycat

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

PDN wrote: »

The cultural thing cuts no ice with me. We should have the freedom to be totally anti-cultural or counter-cultural if we wish (providing we harm no-one else)

So you can reject all aspects of culture while being safeguarded by it's most basic tenet, swell.

robindch

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

Moomoo1 wrote: »

the person trying to subvert freedom is you [...] it's about time you've faced that fact

Not only me, but the majority-Republican Florida House of Representatives too!

In uncompromisingly harsh terms, the House has voted in legislation which removes the Jesus-given freedom of school students to wear any item of clothing in such a way as might expose a student's undies, arse crack or indeed "other body parts in an indecent or vulgar manner". Furthermore, following incidents in which a horse was interfered with and a goat was asphyxiated during a moment of passion, the same House, er, rode rough-shod over the right of citizens to engage in bestiality.

These two shocking pieces of legislation, designed purely to subvert the freedom and rights of citizens of Florida, especially those who've made a free choice to indulge their frightful dress sense at school, or those with very peculiar sexual interests, are on the governor's desk for final signing:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42920080/ns/local_news-miami_fl/

The text of the amendments is here:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0228/BillText/er/HTML (clothes)
http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0344/BillText/er/HTML (bestiality)

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

Comparing it to schoolchildren having a dress code is scraping the bottom

robindch

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

bluewolf wrote: »

Comparing it to schoolchildren having a dress code is scraping the bottom

Well, not really.

From my understanding of the perspective of most anti-ban posters -- who as I mentioned above, appear to elevate a perceived right over the practical consequences of fully enabling a perceived right -- the burka-banning legislation and the provocative-clothing-in-school-banning legislation should be seen as being basically identical. So, I'd expect equal levels of energy to be devoted to the Florida thing, and in equally imputative terms (ie, things like "this legislation isn't just to ban provocative clothing at school, it's because people hate people with provocative dress sense").

Let's see.

.

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote:

the burka-banning legislation and the provocative-clothing-in-school-banning legislation should be seen as being basically identical

Actually they are the total opposites.

One is banning people from covering up and the other is forcing people to cover up. Hey... didn't we decide that was a bad thing already!!??!!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

C81

I'm religious and do not support the ban

I am not against islam or their teachings, but there has to be some give and take by all cultures... From what i can see and have experienced is alot of give to islam but no compromise from islam. We respect them in the western world, christians are disrespected in islamic world.. muslums dont make the attempt to integrate into our society, talk bad about the western world, yet take the money, housing, benefits etc from the western countries. You have to ask why did they move over here?
France were right in banning the burka. Its not in the culture of the western world.people feel nervous when they are about. i cant wear a balaclava on the street.I cant wear a visable crucifix in middle eastern countries. i could go on.....

The reason for this topic and discrimination is the lack of willingness on the islamic side to integrate with western society. It will only get worse the more they refuse to integrate.

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

C81 wrote: »

muslums dont make the attempt to integrate into our society, talk bad about the western world, yet take the money, housing, benefits etc from the western countries. You have to ask why did they move over here?

Here we go again. More total ignorance.

Zinedine Zidane, Chris Eubank, Amir Khan, when did they 'move over here'? How do they not 'attempt to integrate'?

There are over 35,000 Muslims living in Ireland. Obviously as they have failed to integrate into our society they must stick out like a sore thumb? Tell me, how do I spot them?

Admit it... you have no idea what you are talking about!

robindch

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

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In the terms used by the anti-ban side -- the entire point I've made several times, that arguments appear to concern principles only, rather than the results of the principles -- I'm afraid, yes they are exactly the same thing.

The anti-side objects most loudly to the government telling people what to wear. Then I produce a case of the Florida legislature doing just that and suddenly the anti-side seems to be telling me that it's not the government telling people what to wear, but instead a useful law intended to keep order within schools. Huh?

Decide what's more important: the principles or the results. Then argue consistently from them, or change your position.

Valmont

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

The anti-side objects most loudly to the government telling people what to wear. Then I produce a case of the Florida legislature doing just that and suddenly the anti-side seems to be telling me that it's not the government telling people what to wear, but instead a useful law intended to keep order within schools. Huh?

I don't think anyone here is supporting government legislation on a school dress code, they are only pointing out the madness in comparing a legislatively enforced school dress code to one banning the wearing of an item entirely

robindch wrote: »

Decide what's more important: the principles or the results. Then argue consistently from them, or change your position.

I think that's why the banning argument has fallen apart spectacularly; arguing from results only ends up becoming a long winded, spurious, and altogether arbitrary muddle of prescriptive opinions and dogmatism that, ultimately, involves a calling to some hazy and universal code of perfect rationality.

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

I'm afraid, yes they are exactly the same thing.

Q. Government tell school children they must protect their modesty. Is this more similar to case A or case B ?

A. Islam telling women they must protect their modesty.
B. Banning the item used to protect one's modesty.

I think you will find the answer is A.

Why is it OK to tell children to cover up but when a grown woman decides to do it, albeit to the extreme, but same thing none the less, she is told she is a victim of indoctrination, suffering from X syndrome, and criminalised? "I think someone forced you to wear this. I will help you. Here is a fine of €200".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

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

Valmont wrote: »

I don't think anyone here is supporting government legislation on a school dress code, they are only pointing out the madness in comparing a legislatively enforced school dress code to one banning the wearing of an item entirely

You're still missing the point.

The anti-banners believe that they are arguing from principle; I'm arguing from a combination of principle and practice.

As I said in the post following the one above with the links to the Florida stuff, since the government is stepping in to control what clothes people can wear, then I would expect people who are genuinely arguing from principle, to become equally concerned about this. But they haven't, so I'm concluding that they're actually arguing from principle and practice, at which point the "I don't want the government telling me what to wear" argument disintegrates and a proper debate concerning the interplay of rights and responsibilities, and the practical consequences of both, can take place.

Valmont

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

You're still missing the point.

The anti-banners believe that they are arguing from principle; I'm arguing from a combination of principle and practice.

As I said in the post following the one above with the links to the Florida stuff, since the government is stepping in to control what clothes people can wear, then I would expect people who are genuinely arguing from principle, to become equally concerned about this. But they haven't, so I'm concluding that they're actually arguing from principle and practice, at which point the "I don't want the government telling me what to wear" argument disintegrates and a proper debate concerning the interplay of rights and responsibilities, and the practical consequences of both, can take place.

At the risk of beginning a tangential argument concerning the merits of government control on what schoolchildren wear, yes, I would oppose it out of principle. I believe it should be up to the individual school to set their own dress codes, without government interference.

That undoubtedly thorny issue aside, I apply the same principle to the Burka ban. Although, comparing the two issues, the burka ban is a much larger and more malevolent strike against individual rights and as such, is not suitable for comparisons with relatively benign school dresscode legislation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mark Hamill

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

Valmont wrote: »

Your use of the term "rational" seems to be slightly arbitrary, to what universal standards of rationality must we subscribe? Who is the authority on this? You? Western governments?

Rational is something that is consistent with its claims. A solution is considered rational if it can be shown to move towards solving the problem it claims exists. I have already explained why burkas do not (and why teh problem they think is there isn't), so either show my how i'm wrong, give me a rational reason to wear the burka or explain why I should take anything you say on board if, apparently, there are no authorities on rationality and no-one is allowed contradict anything anyone ever does.

Valmont wrote: »

Some people would find it very hard to understand the reasons a boxer would put forth for having his head thumped for fun. So given my inability to understand why people engage in dangerous activities, can I assume that they are intellectually capable but indoctrinated (a specious use of the term I think) or just plain old intellectually challenged?

Poor analogy as you are ignoring context. I dont know many boxers that say everyone should box, or that everyone should enjoy getting their heads thumped for fun, they just say that they enjoy it themselves (actually I dont know many boxers who enjoy getting hit int the head at all). The burka is not a subjective choice, like boxing is. In the countries ruled by burka wearing societies, all women must wear the burka.

Valmont wrote: »

This logic is simply patrionising and haughty in the truest sense of the words. I can't think of a rational reason (as if such an objective code of rationality exists) as to why somebody is doing something so therefore they must be indoctrinated or mentally deficient. Elitist madness.

The only patronising I see here is from you. People are allowed to point at others and say what they are doing is irrational. We are allowed to say that its damaging to society and once we can show it to be true, we can protect society from it. This libertarian bs that no-one can ever interfere with anyone else is insanity, society cannot exist without rules designed to stop people from stepping over each other. The fact that still no one can offer a rational reason to wear the burka, and the fact that the sexist oppressive memes it represents and drives for are destructive for society, both show that the first part of the answer is to ban it.

Mark Hamill

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

Scotty # wrote: »

Now you are being ridiculous. No one in this thread has promoted 'blind opposition' to anything.

Inability to show rational reason for burka plus inability to show that they are not bad for society = blind opposition.

Scotty # wrote: »

Millions... Billions of people on this planet live their lives based on the belief that certain actions they take will lead them to hell. Sex before marriage, homosexuality, working on a Sunday...

Are we to tell all these people that they are victims of indoctrination and force them to go against their beliefs? Or is it only Islam?

Your inability to understand is astounding. Its not about it being religious (some say that the burka isn't even religious, its cultural), its about it being damaging to a free and equal society.

Scotty # wrote: »

I think most of the French ban (if not all of it) stems from the fact that the non-Islam French just don't want to see these people. They don't like being reminded that there is an Islam community within their own. They couldn't give a toss what these women put on their heads as long as they don't do it in front of them. That's the real motive for the ban. Let's be honest about it. It has nothing to do with the welfare of the woman in question. Is has to do with OUR un-comfortableness at seeing these people in public.

There is something like 300 women who were the burka in France, so they aren't going to be seen much anyway, so your ill thought reasoning here just betrays your own racial discrimination.