Burka ban

Pushtrak

I'm religious and support the ban

Improbable wrote: »

Just as an interesting tangential point, what's the difference between being forced to wear a burka in public and being forced to wear regular clothes in public?

I suppose it is down to exactly what proximity exists between the person and the forcer. As in, the burqa, if being forced on a person is generally, I'd assume familial or the mosque. With regular clothes, it is gardai and the state. So, in the case of the burqa, I guess it'd be more personal to the individual for whom the force is being levered. I wonder what others might come up with on considering that question.

Aren't they both just aspects of social norms of a given environment?

Well, yes, that much is pretty obvious. I just think the important point of "regular clothes" to some is not another category to burqa, and, again, don't think it appropriate to outlaw the wearing of such garments.

robindch

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

Improbable wrote: »

[...] what's the difference between being forced to wear a burka in public and being forced to wear regular clothes in public? [...]

It's a matter of degree -- the burka is a single item of clothing with a clear political meaning (effectively, that the woman is under control). There is no very special political meaning to wearing clothes in general.

sponsoredwalk

robindch wrote: »

It's a matter of degree -- the burka is a single item of clothing with a clear political meaning (effectively, that the woman is under control). There is no very special political meaning to wearing clothes in general.

So when do we ban women from becoming dominatrices?

Improbable

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

It's a matter of degree -- the burka is a single item of clothing with a clear political meaning (effectively, that the woman is under control). There is no very special political meaning to wearing clothes in general.

I agree, it is a matter of degree. But what I'm saying is that all clothes should be optional too. I wanna run free yo!

Nodin

I'm religious and support the ban

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So when do we ban women from becoming dominatrices?

....we'll have to ask their permission first....

robindch

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

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So when do we ban women from becoming dominatrices?

Been a while since I last checked, but I believe that most of that goes on in the privacy of one's own dungeon.

As with the burka ban which applies only in public places, people can wear (or not) whatever they like in their own property.

Mark Hamill

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

Nodin wrote: »

Ha. I give her credit for being a human being capable of making her own decisions.

Even after she converted to catholicism?

Nodin wrote: »

You, however, are denigrating her as a woman and a human being.

I'm not denigrating her as a woman, frankly such a dishonest strawman is beneath you. I am denigrating her ability to make rational conclusions, irrespective of her sex.

Nodin wrote: »

Explain how shes been "brainwashed".

Unless I'm mistaken she is under the impression that morality exists as an entity and that this entity is best represented by the catholic god. She has been somehow convinced of this, maybe by some specific entity or maybe just by her own wishful thinking.

Nodin wrote: »

You, however, are the only one here who limits human choice to a simple "brainwashed or coerced".

No, I dont. Another poor strawman of my position. A group of religious people making a decision under coercion does not equal human choice in general.

Nodin wrote: »

So still nothing to back up your position.

What "reasoning"?

I've given it before, I've explained the lack of ration and logic in the arguments for the burka, I even linked to a thread (more than once) in the Islam forum where I argued against it there. Thanks for admitting, though, that you haven't actually been reading my arguments.

Nodin wrote: »

Were I to present endless accounts from women in the West gladly wearing the burka, you'd just type "brainwashed" after each and every one.

Yes just like I would type brainwashed after each and Irish person who wants to baptise their kids as catholics but who believes transubstantiation to be absurd.

Nodin

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Even after she converted to catholicism?
.

Yep.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not denigrating her as a woman, frankly such a dishonest strawman is beneath you. I am denigrating her ability to make rational conclusions, irrespective of her sex. .

More specifically you claimed she has been "brainwashed".

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Unless I'm mistaken she is under the impression that morality exists as an entity and that this entity is best represented by the catholic god..

That seems to be the case.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

She has been somehow convinced of this, maybe by some specific entity or maybe just by her own wishful thinking...

You've no evidence of the former and she's entitled to make errors with the latter. So much for showing she was "brainwashed".

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, I dont. Another poor strawman of my position. A group of religious people making a decision under coercion does not equal human choice in general....

You haven't proved coercion in relation to women in the West wearing the Burka.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I've given it before, I've ..........my arguments

Your thinking, your analysis. You might take your observations about "wishful thinking" with regard to the young woman who converted to catholicism and apply them to yourself.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes just like I would type brainwashed after each and Irish person who wants to baptise their kids as catholics but who believes transubstantiation to be absurd.

...which again, denigrates humanity in general. People are entitled to be wrong, and it doesn't mean that they have been "brainwashed" if they reach a conclusion you don't agree with.

Mark Hamill

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

Pushtrak wrote: »

Do these apply in Ireland? I wouldn't suppose they do.

See many burka wearers playing tennis? Going swimming? Going to the gym?

Pushtrak wrote: »

Do you think there is no one who would be ill effected by this restriction on their freedom of what to wear? Do you think there will be some unlucky ones caught in the cross fire?

Yes, there will be some. Far fewer than those who will be ill effected if we let things continue at a snails pace (ie the children growing up today, and probably their children too)

Pushtrak wrote: »

Visibility isn't the measure of abuse/something worth taking steps to correct. It is the depth/magnitude of the abuse. Child protection services would have the knowledge on these matters more than we, and it is with them I'd like to see solutions.

Visibility is a measure for how much urgency our counteractions should have. In that if we can see abuse happening we should get up off our butts and do something about it sooner rather than later. We shouldn't get complacent to the point of being happy to see it.

Pushtrak wrote: »

I guess it makes all the difference exactly what perspective you are looking at this from. I'm trying to look at it from two directions.

1) The burqa wearer who is following an interpretation of their choosing who the ban will negatively effect.
2) Actual coercive environments with burqa wearing enforced. Protections should be in place for such people.

1 doesn't exist.

Pushtrak wrote: »

The catholic church has had to modernise a lot or else it knew it was going to lose a lot of followers. This is a common theme for religion. Ireland isn't exactly an environment for radicalised islam.

Whats this got to do with most burka wearers being born into it?

Pushtrak wrote: »

We don't have exact figures for burqa wearers, and even if we did I'd suppose you'd discard them as you see it as abuse inherently, and what matter if one or a million.

Well what matter would it make?

Pushtrak wrote: »

You presume this is the more common type, whereas I would think otherwise.

Why?

Pushtrak wrote: »

In the case of the households where the burqa is enforced, we very likely are looking at an environment where child protection services would be need to intervene on some other issue were the burqa ban enforced.

Intervention can occur on both fronts.

Pushtrak wrote: »

no amount of burqa wearers doing so by choice would satisfy you.

One would, if you could show it was chosen freely.
However, that would only satisfy me that it could be chosen freely, not that it isn't so bad for society that it should be allowed.

Mark Hamill

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

Improbable wrote: »

Just as an interesting tangential point, what's the difference between being forced to wear a burka in public and being forced to wear regular clothes in public? Aren't they both just aspects of social norms of a given environment?

What's the difference between telling people they have to wear something (anything) and they have to wear this one specific thing over everything else?

Even ignoring all the religious and cultural aspects and justifications of these positions, is it not obvious that they are miles apart? (On the same scale maybe, in terms of both being expressions of societal norms, but at opposite ends)

Mark Hamill

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

Nodin wrote: »

More specifically you claimed she has been "brainwashed".

Yes, but irrespective of her sex.

Nodin wrote: »

You've no evidence of the former and she's entitled to make errors with the latter. So much for showing she was "brainwashed".

It doesn't matter which it is, both are forms of brainwashing. The first for obvious reasons, the second because its takes a very special kind of error to conclude that morality exists as an entity (and this entity is a god who mauled a bunch of kids for insulting a bald guy). The thing is, I hardly think she came to her opinion spontaneously (given that she writes a blog about atheism, she likely read theistic propaganda relevant to her posts). Even if her opinion came from no one source, it was till influenced by outside sources looking to get to suspend her critical faculties.

Nodin wrote: »

You haven't proved coercion in relation to women in the West wearing the Burka.

This wasn't my point here. You strawmanned my position to refer to all human choice, I was just correcting you.

Nodin wrote: »

Your thinking, your analysis. You might take your observations about "wishful thinking" with regard to the young woman who converted to catholicism and apply them to yourself.

So you could you. Yourself and to the people you have quoted in support of the burka. Not to mention everyone on every forum in existence. I notice that still instead of debunking my actual arguments, you just disregard them without discussing their content. At least I looked at the content of the arguments you presented.

Nodin wrote: »

...which again, denigrates humanity in general. People are entitled to be wrong, and it doesn't mean that they have been "brainwashed" if they reach a conclusion you don't agree with.

Non sequitor. Not that people aren't entitled to being wrong (thats just a strawman) they are entitled to being wrong (and being told about it), but that they are brainwashed if they reach a conclusions I dont agree with. While I would suspect some sort of brainwashing in relation to a lot of religious beliefs (and some beliefs e.g. "natural" medicine etc) it certainly doesn't apply to every conclusion, not by a long shot.

Burt Lancaster

I'm religious and support the ban

Which countries have banned it so far, and what offical reason did they give ?

Nodin

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It doesn't matter which it is, both are forms of brainwashing. The first for obvious reasons, the second because its takes a very special kind of error to conclude that morality exists as an entity (and this entity is a god who mauled a bunch of kids for insulting a bald guy). The thing is, I hardly think she came to her opinion spontaneously (given that she writes a blog about atheism, she likely read theistic propaganda relevant to her posts). Even if her opinion came from no one source, it was till influenced by outside sources looking to get to suspend her critical faculties. .

Crap. You just can't concede that an intelligent person can differ from you.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you could you. Yourself and to the people you have quoted in support of the burka. Not to mention everyone on every forum in existence. I notice that still instead of debunking my actual arguments, you just disregard them without discussing their content. At least I looked at the content of the arguments you presented..

I, however, don't intend to intrude on others with only my reasoning sans evidence as justification.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Non sequitor. Not that people aren't entitled to being wrong (thats just a strawman) they are entitled to being wrong (and being told about it), but that they are brainwashed if they reach a conclusions I dont agree with. While I would suspect some sort of brainwashing in relation to a lot of religious beliefs (and some beliefs e.g. "natural" medicine etc) it certainly doesn't apply to every conclusion, not by a long shot.

...yet it comes up in this thread with a disturbing regularity.

Pushtrak

I'm religious and support the ban

France, Belgium, The Netherlands... Italy either has something in place, or nearly does. I think Australia. As for others, I'm not really sure. As for why, I think the people on this thread have represented the reasons well. It is seen as misogynistic, tool of oppression...

I don't feel like responding to this thread in the immediate future, as I'd only be repeating points that I've made countless times now. Though, who knows, tomorrow, I might feel up for giving it another go :pac:

Mark Hamill

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

Nodin wrote: »

Crap. You just can't concede that an intelligent person can differ from you.

Of course intelligent people can differ from me. Its just that when their conclusions clearly lack intelligent reasoning, its usually because they have been brainwashed in some way. Unless you think her reasoning is intelligent?

Nodin wrote: »

I, however, don't intend to intrude on others with only my reasoning sans evidence as justification.

You dont have any reasoning, only ad hominems. You still haven't debunked my reasoning. you may want to explain how people saying they want to do something contradicts the assertion that they have been brainwashed to say it.

Nodin wrote: »

...yet it comes up in this thread with a disturbing regularity.

This thread about a religiously justified garment? Yes I wonder why religious brainwashing could ever come up in a thread about a religious garment :rolleyes:

Nodin

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Of course intelligent people can differ from me. Its just that when their conclusions clearly lack intelligent reasoning, its usually because they have been brainwashed in some way.

........you really can't see it, can ye?

Burt Lancaster

I'm religious and support the ban

Pushtrak wrote: »

France, Belgium, The Netherlands... Italy either has something in place, or nearly does. I think Australia. As for others, I'm not really sure. As for why, I think the people on this thread have represented the reasons well. It is seen as misogynistic, tool of oppression...

I understand thats the opinion, but is that the actual offical reason the countries that banned it gave ?
Or did they give other/more offical reasons ?

Pushtrak

I'm religious and support the ban

French ban

Madame Drider, who has worn the veil for the past 11 years, said she would challenge the new law in the European courts. She claims the ban breaches a basic human right of freedom of expression. Although France is the first country to fully implement the law other European nations are treading a similar path. Belgium has already passed a law in its lower house banning the wearing of the veil, but because of the political crisis in the country it is yet to be ratified by the senate. The Netherlands, Italy and Germany are also discussing the possibility of a ban. French officials say the move is a measure to protect women's rights and liberal French values.

Although France has the largest Islamic population in western Europe only a tiny proportion of the country's five million Muslims wear the full veil. The French government puts the figure at no more than 2,000. Most women are expected to comply with the ban but a few say they will remain true to their beliefs and risk arrest by staying covered up in public.

Belgium

Denis Ducarme, an MP from the francophone liberal MR party that drafted the bill, said it was “a question of public safety”. He insisted that the state should be able “to identify [people] in the streets for security reasons”. He said the legislation was aimed against the risk of women becoming “slaves to a question of religion”, describing Muslim veils as “just … sectarian behaviour imported from Pakistan, Afghanistan … it’s not an obligation in the Koran”.

Daniel Bacquelaine (MR), who proposed the bill, said it was necessary to forbid the wearing of clothes that “totally mask and enclose” the wearer. He described wearing the burqa as “not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society”. Peter DeDecker of the Flemish separatist NVA saw the ban as a way of defending “our fundamental principles of the enlightenment”.

Netherlands

Even so, the move is largely symbolic – only about 300 women in the Netherlands are believed to wear burqas and they are rarely seen in public. Muslims, mostly immigrants from Turkey and Morocco, represent about 1 million of the 16.7 million Dutch population.

Like neighboring Belgium, the Dutch government cited security concerns as a reason for the ban and framed it as a move to safeguard public order and allow all people to "fully participate in society." "People must be able to look one another in the eye," Verhagen said.

You get the idea.

Burt Lancaster

I'm religious and support the ban

Pushtrak wrote: »

French ban


Belgium

Netherlands

You get the idea.

Thanks for that Push, but they don't really seem to be giving any firm reasons, only very vague, opinion like ones. I'm surprised they are getting away with it on legal grounds if that is the only reasons they can give. They could have at least come up with something better, i.e. national security, people must be identifiable/unmasked in public etc. etc.

Mark Hamill

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

Nodin wrote: »

........you really can't see it, can ye?

You can't respond to entire posts, can you?
What am I not seeing?

Lucy8080

rob,


what is freedom as you understand it?

the burka is only an instrument of oppression where people do not have recourse to law to refuse to wear it.

cowboy/indian costumes....i reserve the right to wear both.....i want protection from being forced to wear either.

thats freedom!

what you propose is born of your fears.

robindch

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

Lucy8080 wrote: »

the burka is only an instrument of oppression where people do not have recourse to law to refuse to wear it. cowboy/indian costumes....i reserve the right to wear both.....i want protection from being forced to wear either.

You do realize, don't you, that the ban on burkas is intended to stop men from forcing women to wear burkas?

As such, the ban is giving you the protection you seem to want from being forced to wear something you don't want to wear.

Lucy8080

freedom stands on a razors edge ,rob.

protect it, rather than fear tribal customs that will shrink in its light.

when fear drives our policies....we are no better than that which we fear.

now we get enslaved.

robindch

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

the burka is... like a dress... made of cloth, its a headdress for the free, but the effects are like cold steel

freedom in a dress for the head so nobody need fear the light

of freedom which is heady

and dressy...

might try a haiku... later...

MrPudding

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

Nice piece from the NSS that articulates my view on this much better than I could myself:

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2012/08/women-can-choose-to-wear-the-burka--but-can-they-choose-not-to

MrP

Gbear

I'm religious and support the ban

MrPudding wrote: »

Nice piece from the NSS that articulates my view on this much better than I could myself:

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2012/08/women-can-choose-to-wear-the-burka--but-can-they-choose-not-to

MrP

A way to sidestep that completely would be to ban religious schools.

I'm not entirely sure I buy the argument that some people having access to better private schools is a bad thing but there should certainly be a secular curriculum and probably a secular ethos pushed by the government to ensure an equal education and equal opportunities for all citizens.

A good article explaining why the Burka is a terrible thing, albeit with too much of an adversarial and "you're either with us or against us" sort of tone.
Still doesn't really come up with a logically consistent basis with which to ban the burka.

The whole, "I have a right to see your face" notion that I think they chanced their arm with in France doesn't really wash with me.

MrPudding

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

Gbear wrote: »

A way to sidestep that completely would be to ban religious schools.

I'm not entirely sure I buy the argument that some people having access to better private schools is a bad thing but there should certainly be a secular curriculum and probably a secular ethos pushed by the government to ensure an equal education and equal opportunities for all citizens.

A good article explaining why the Burka is a terrible thing, albeit with too much of an adversarial and "you're either with us or against us" sort of tone.
Still doesn't really come up with a logically consistent basis with which to ban the burka.

The whole, "I have a right to see your face" notion that I think they chanced their arm with in France doesn't really wash with me.

The right to see the person's face is but one justification. Whilst I don't think it is the strongest, it is valid nonetheless.

Personnaly I found the arguments around the damage it causes to be a stronger argument. I also think it is interesting to point out that we do not have millions of woman, even those of islamic faith, in non-theocratic states lining up to wear a veil.

I think the line "a woman can choose to wear a veil can she choose not to" is an excellent question that cuts to the heart of the matter.

MrP

meryem

I'm religious and do not support the ban

I appreciate the article writer points as well. In my views it can start from developed world like France, UK, US etc.

Their needs to be strong legal backing to support the cause of ladies in forced burqa kind of dresses. To make things easier to start with some governments can create a law wherein every Burqa wearing lady needs to give in writing if she is willing to wear it with own will... Since in western government it won't be easier for men to force such things over their women with ease govt. can give it a try instead of forcing total ban straight ban for in that case their might be some strong reaction which I think can be avoided...

If things went right Muslim community will start accepting the whole concept of easy dresses for women.

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

As I've stated earlier in the thread my opposition to a ban on the burka has nothing to do with Islam, Religion, Tradition, Etc. For me it's about the freedom and right to dress as you choose....

I did find this interesting though and wonder what the pro bans feelings are on the subject?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159380/Secondary-school-bans-girls-wearing-skirts-prevent-early-sexualisation-pupils.html

Apparently there are 54 schools in the UK now who have banned girls wearing skirts 'to prevent sexualisation'.

Oppression or not? Will this have a long term effect on how these girls feel about showing their legs/bare skin? Will this have an effect on the boys in the school and their thoughts regarding girls showing skin?

Is there much of a difference between a 'cultures' telling their women they should be covered up and school principles telling their women (albeit children) that they should be covered up? (I'm sure a principle somewhere has told them it's for their own good!)


Personally I see the ban on skirts and the ban on the burka as being the same thing.... neither solution actually address the problem.

robindch

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

A Dunnes Stores worker takes a case alleging unfair dismissal after she converted to islam, began to wear the hijab and refused to take it off at work, where there's a strict uniform policy.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0912/1224323910447.html

Who's right in this? Dunnes who believe they have a right to control how their staff present themselves to their customers in their own shops, or Ms Tavoraite who believes she has a right to wear what she wants to on company time, on company premises?