Burka ban

Rev Hellfire

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

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're absolutely correct, I stand corrected.
Not that I believe that invalidates either their reason which is purely practical or the reason I gave erroneously attributed to them. One I suspect is a sub-text to the proposed bans elsewhere.

Morbert

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

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I could give a cop-out answer and say yes, the government does prevent BDSM games if they are done in public.

But on a more serious note, it is well established that BDSM games are just that... games. If these games and odd fetishes ever evolved into genuine torture and humiliation then the government would certainly step in. The burqua, unlike BDSM, is not simply a prop for people with strange but harmless fetishes. It is a tool explicitly designed to conceal women from the public, to mark them out as second class citizens and the property of men.

As you said yourself, Belgium is a very liberal country when it comes to clothing. What does that tell you about what the burqua represents if it is banned in such a country?

[edit to add]-

donegalfella wrote:

Nothing here about protecting women's rights.

"Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society."

That sentence is about womens' rights.

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

"Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society."

That sentence is about womens' rights.

You could say that sentence is about anything you choose since it is obviously nonsense.

An open, liberal, tolerant society does not dictate to its members what they may, or may not wear. Belgium's male-dominated parliament is dictating to women that they may not wear a burka even if it is their willing choice to do so. You can dress that up (pun intended) any way you want - but it's hardly a case of standing up for women's rights.

In Belgium western men are telling immigrant women what they can or cannot wear.

Morbert

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

PDN wrote: »

You could say that sentence is about anything you choose since it is obviously nonsense.

An open, liberal, tolerant society does not dictate to its members what they may, or may not wear. Belgium's male-dominated parliament is dictating to women that they may not wear a burka even if it is their willing choice to do so. You can dress that up (pun intended) any way you want - but it's hardly a case of standing up for women's rights.

In Belgium western men are telling immigrant women what they can or cannot wear.

You say it is nonsense, but it is not nonsense. And you say I am dressing it up, but I am not dressing it up at all. As I have said before, this is not about dictating a fashion statement, oppressing religious practise, or preventing sensibilities from being offended. They are all unfortunate but incidental. It is about protecting the rights of women against vicious practises, and any cursory glance into the history of the burqua will testify to this. It may seem extreme to say that the right to wear the burqua is on par with the 'right' to be beaten by a husband, but I say it unreservedly.

1,000 women losing the 'right' to wear the burqua is insignificant if it means even one woman is no longer pressured to hide herself from the public.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Morbert

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

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't want to venture too far down this side of the argument because that part of my answer wasn't serious. The important part of my answer was, as soon as BDSM stops being "fun and games" then the government certainly steps in.

I think it tells us more about the direction in which Europe is going than it does about the burqa, to be honest. It tells us that people are deeply threatened by minority groups like Muslims, and are resorting to authoritarian tactics, such as banning items of clothing, to force them to "fit in."

It's important to separate the minority group from the practise. I know many muslims, and none of them would ever dream of supporting the practise of wearing the burqua. In fact, they would be the ones most vehemently against the practise, probably because they have the most experience with the true motive behind the practise. So I must make it perfectly clear that this is not an attack on muslims, but rather a gesture of intolerance enforced by many muslim nations.

The problem is, however, that liberal societies are supposed to be pluralistic and tolerant. In the USA, What Not to Wear is a TV show. In Belgium, it's a law.

Again, it is not about fashion. That is only incidental. The same way a law banning public nudity incidentally prohibits the birthday suit as a fashion statement. Plus, I think we can both agree that the veil is not worn for fashion.

Valmont

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Galt, portrayed appropriately as a social autistic, could never have understood -- let alone dealt with -- the subtle, but enormous, power of social coercion and psychological manipulation.

Why put forward such an obviously tendentious opinion? Are you hoping no one has actually read Atlas Shrugged? The points you raise are central themes of the book. John Galt cried out for people to fight 'social' coercion more than anything else (his giant speech covered this in detail). Regarding the psychological manipulation, did you miss the part about what happened to the twentieth century motor company and Galt's role in it? I know it's only ficton but your analysis of Galt is so wrong as to seem almost ironic; to anyone who has read the book anyway.

When I travelled around Bosnia I didn't see even one woman in a niqab or a burka. I talked to many muslim women in both Sarajevo and Mostar and they didn't seem downtrodden or oppressed. In fact they were about as muslim as I am roman catholic.

robindch

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

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good question. Not having travelled there, nor read much about them, I'm far less familiar with these communities and how they operate than I am with islamic-dominated societies. Hence, I can't really answer the question with any degree of certainty.

However, I'm much more familiar with a vaguely similar religious group, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints -- a mormon outfit whose religious ramblings legitimize polygamy and pedophilia -- and I certainly would support a move by the federal government to rein in them. Though as I mentioned in this thread before, that's not going to happen. Mainly because they are numerous and well-armed and because the last time the US tried to deal with some of their more extravagantly outrageous religious wingnuts, the world learned that Texas christians don't give up without a fight.

To ask you a question, do you fully support the right of FLDS leaders to have upwards of twenty or thirty wives (ranging in age from 12 upwards), between fifty and one hundred kids, and keeping their wives in a state that is not a million miles from sexual slavery? More on that in this excellent documentary and the follow-up. And in this book.

donegalfella wrote: »

However, if a Christian woman in Western society chooses, for religious reasons, to subjugate herself entirely to her husband in every conceivable way, the state allows her that choice. It does not regulate what she wears, or how she behaves, or what decisions she makes or does not make.

I'm fascinated -- why do you keep ignoring the central fact in all of this -- that the choice is not freely made?

robindch

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

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Pace the Guarniad and Bacquelaine's ropey command of English, he's has said rather more than they've quoted there. From here:

Daniel Bacquelaine wrote:

I think that niqab and burka are symbols of fundamentalism [...] and also I think it means that women are under men; it's not possible to consider equality between men and women [...] and I think that to prohibit the niqab and burqa is in fact to give, to provide, freedom for these women.

Valmont

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

I'm fascinated -- why do you keep ignoring the central fact in all of this -- that the choice is not freely made?

What is your definition of a freely made choice? How do you know if someone is not making a free choice?

What differentiates thirty muslim women in Belgium choosing to wear a niqab and some kid feeling compelled to buy an Abercrombie hoody because that's what all the cool kids have? I think it is fallacious to assume that libertarian principles are only moral insofar as the choices people make are completely 'free'. I can't see a way to clearly define a purely 'free' choice; we're getting into the determinism and free will argument there. You don't know that they are being threatened so why do you assume their motives have a nefarious antecedent? Are you not denying them their individuality slightly?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Waking-Dreams

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

That's your presumption, although you consistently offer no evidence that any of the 30 Belgian women who wear the full veil have been coerced into doing so.

They do so because, I'll hazard a guess and say, they've been brought up that way, indoctrinated even. But just because someone is brainwashed doesn't mean the rest of society has to accomodate them. There are laws which state you can't walk around naked in public, even if that's your thing and aren't coerced into doing it.

One might say it's illegal because it could be abused, children could be subjected to it and be psychologically harmed as a result. But you could wonder about the whole thing and ask, why are we as a people so ashamed of our naked bodies? Anyways...

prevented from doing so by the authority of an overbearing, paternalistic state.

I hear ya, I mean, why can't I wear my motorcycle helmet into the bank or the post office? It's bleedin' ridiculous! Nanny state.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

strobe

I'm religious and support the ban

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But can you legally walk around a park in Belgium wearing a motorcycle helmet now? How has the law been worded? It doesn't specifically mention "a full Burka" does it? I was under the impression that the law, if applied, would mean you could not wear a helmet around in a park anymore than you could wear a Burka with veil?

Dublinstiofán

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

If you wanna talk to anybody in the Gaeltacht you gotta speak Irish.

If you wanna go to Belgium you can't wear your burka.

Gotta be rules i'm in full aggreement that if you want to go to a place that is not your home. You gotta live by their rules.

strobe

I'm religious and support the ban

Dublinstiofán wrote: »

If you wanna talk to anybody in the Gaeltacht you gotta speak Irish.

If you wanna go to Belgium you can't wear your burka.

Gotta be rules i'm in full aggreement that if you want to go to a place that is not your home. You gotta live by their rules.

It's a little more complex than that though surely? ("It is complex and stop calling me Shirley"). There are places in the world where if you travelled there with your daughter and she slept with a man that wasn't her husband, the rules would say that she would be buried up to her neck and stoned to death. If you lived in Germany in the late 30's and your family happened to be Jewish, or you were homosexual, the rules you would have had to live by were that you and your family would have been imprisoned and murdered.....

Dublinstiofán

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

strobe wrote: »

It's a little more complex than that though surely? ("It is complex and stop calling me Shirley"). There are places in the world where if you travelled there with your daughter and she slept with a man that wasn't her husband, she would be buried up to her neck and stoned to death. If you lived in Germany in the late 30's and your family happened to be Jewish, or you were homosexual, the rules you would have had to live by were that you and your family would have been imprisoned and murdered.....

It is more complex. That's why i was trying to keep it simple.

They do have the choice at the end of the day. If you wear a Burka you have a choice whether you go to Belgium or not. Nobody is forcing you. But if you choose to go there you cant wear it, Simple. Obey the rules or get out!

Waking-Dreams

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

I don't think you can argue convincingly that Muslims are any more or any less "brainwashed" or "indoctrinated" than members of any other religion. And yet members of Christian religions are not being targeted by law.

Christians don't seem to treat women with as much contempt or disrespect (any more). Muslim women have a long history of oppression. Accomodating a tradition routed in age-old sexism just seems silly. That some Muslim women want to wear it comes across like a form of Stockholm syndrome.


I mean, haven't you ever wondered why a wife would ever tolerate an abusive husband for years and years? You could say, “That's her right if she chooses to stay”, but the state can and does intervene. If we had to accomodate that kind of carry on because of religious beliefs what kind of a messed-up society would we live in?

strobe

I'm religious and support the ban

Dublinstiofán wrote: »

Obey the rules or get out!

Really???

I'm not talking about the Burka/Belgium situation here in particular, but do you really believe in that? In that as a concept? "The rules are the rules. These are the rules. Accept it or leave?"

sublunar

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

initially i disagreed with the ban, not because i wasn't happy to see one of the more oppressive and misogynistic aspects of islam being cracked down on, but because i don't think that governments should be able to control what people wear on the street. in banks, airports, places with security issues, yes. and under no circumstances should religious belief be a free pass to bend the rules of professional dress codes - a teacher who argues that she should be allowed to teach her class while hiding behind a sheet is taking the piss. but walking around in public, i would usually believe that people should be able to wear whatever.

but at the moment i'm seeing it more as a secular, progressive country kicking political correctness to the kerb and taking a stand against a repressive religion that is at odds with their laws and culture, so i'm agreeing with it. the burqa is symptomatic of a religion that oppresses women, simple as.

there are two ways to look at it - if women feel they have to wear it, then their religion and/or culture is sexist and repressive. if they "choose" to wear it, then it can't be a massive issue if it's banned.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

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

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We share an opinion -- at last!

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Whatever about the 12yo's, the adults in the FLDS are largely there by their own choice -- granted that choice is almost certainly not a "free" one inasmuch as they've been brainwashed since birth and emotionally and functionally unable to make a free choice.

In which case, we agree again and we're no longer debating about whether state intervention should take place, but the conditions under which it should.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

...and they've argued that it acts to repress women, which is the point that you denied. I'm sure a longer google search will produce a more complete picture, but your assertion that the Belges are doing this simply to increase societal cohesion by having people walk around with their faces uncovered is unfortunately not supported by the facts of the case.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Morbert

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

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is the crux of the matter. When people say makeup etc. represses women, they are being vague and disingenuous (not to mention incorrect). But there is no such ambiguity with the burqua. You only need to look at its history. It is specifically used by regimes as a weapon against womens' rights.

Stercus Accidit

I'm religious and support the ban

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/7676367/Muslim-woman-fined-430-for-wearing-burka-in-Italy.html

He said his wife would continue to wear the full-length item of clothing because he did not want her to be seen by other men, but in future she would be forced to stay at home most of the time.

Womens freedom improved by the burka ban, wait a second...


Lets break this down;

- Muslim women are under their husbands control, forced to wear burka.

- Burka is banned to 'liberate' these women

- Muslim women who are under their husbands control(hence burka in the first place) are no longer able to go out in society.

- They are more trapped than before.

robindch

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

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Even in a publication as carefully prescriptive as the Daily Telegraph, I've never seen the burqa described as "expressive"!

Seriously -- go to some place in the Middle East, I recommend Tehran for the greatest sense of tension -- walk down any street city and come back here and tell us that you have seen nothing but free women.

iUseVi

robindch wrote: »

Even in a publication as carefully prescriptive as the Daily Telegraph, I've never seen the burqa described as "expressive"!

Seriously -- go to some place in the Middle East, I recommend Tehran for the greatest sense of tension -- walk down any street city and come back here and tell us that you have seen nothing but free women.

Actually, how many women will you see? I thought it was mostly men on streets?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Flamed Diving

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

Has this news piece been posted yet?

Police stop Muslim woman wearing veil in Italy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8658017.stm