Burka ban

robindch

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

koth wrote: »

But the problem is the religious bullies. Ban the burka and they'll just find another way to bully the women.

Perhaps, but that's a bit like saying that people shouldn't fight cancer because people will die of something else anyway. In any case, women might also appreciate that the state is standing up for their rights and gain confidence to stand up to other kinds of bullying too.

koth wrote: »

A mental shift needs to be sparked in the bullied women to let them know they can get help. It's the bullies that need to be tackled not an item they use for bullying.

As above, the state is guaranteeing their right to wear what they want to, not what they've (almost) certainly been coerced to wear and that sends a strong signal concerning the state's support of their rights.

Of course, the bullies need to be tackled too and levying fines seems like a reasonable way to do it, given the suspicion that the men who are likely to do this kind of religious bullying are the kind of guys who are likely to control household finances.

What kind of "mental shift" do you propose to spark? And how do you intend to do it within a religious framework which actively condemns if not prohibits contact with incompatible people and ideas, and especially, ones which are intended to undermine religious restrictions themselves? That's catch-22.

robindch

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

Gordon wrote: »

When I lived in the Middle East for many years, on planes leaving the country to go to a western country, there'd usually be a number of women in burkas on the plane. It was commonplace for women to go to the toilet and return wearing western clothes, having ditched their burka.

Yes, I've seen that often in the region too, most memorably on a flight out of Tehran a few years back when some youngish woman took off her veil and flung it with disgust onto the plane's floor, where it stayed. Other flights were less demonstrative, but it happened all the time, all the same.

On the same trip, I ate in an underground restaurant in central Tehran and the woman on the next table had a very light, translucent veil carefully dangling from the very furthest back of where her hair was tied up behind her head. Shortly after she sat down, the waiter -- a man obviously -- came over and complained to her about it. A short, sharp exchange ensued which ended when she pulled it up over her head, only to have it drop back a short while later. So the waiter arrived over a second time to remonstrate more loudly, resulting in her pulling it up permanently. I've seen similar things in other countries in the middle east too.

I'm curious to know whether many of the (western) people who object to the ban have seen themselves the level of bullying directed at women that happens when restrictive dress codes become socially mandated in this fashion.

Delirium

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Perhaps, but that's a bit like saying that people shouldn't fight cancer because people will die of something else anyway. In any case, women might also appreciate that the state is standing up for their rights and gain confidence to stand up to other kinds of bullying too.

I wouldn't agree with that as I'd view the bully as the cancer rather than the burka. It's the threats from the person coercing the women to wear the burka that needs addressing.

As above, the state is guaranteeing their right to wear what they want to, not what they've (almost) certainly been coerced to wear and that sends a strong signal concerning the state's support of their rights.

Unless the woman wishes to wear a burka. And the state isn't doing anything to try to protect people from coercion, which is the problem after all.

Of course, the bullies need to be tackled too and levying fines seems like a reasonable way to do it, given the suspicion that the men who are likely to do this kind of religious bullying are the kind of guys who are likely to control household finances.

Not the best way to do it though as it also means that a single Muslim woman who lives alone or with other women can be punished as if she was a woman being coerced. The problem isn't the burka but rather the attitudes of some men in the Muslim community.

What kind of "mental shift" do you propose to spark? And how do you intend to do it within a religious framework which actively condemns if not prohibits contact with incompatible people and ideas, and especially, ones which are intended to undermine religious restrictions themselves? That's catch-22.

Why does it have to be done inside of a religious framework? The information can be provided outside of the religion. The women become aware that the (burka-requiring) Muslim way isn't the only way.

sparkling sea

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

To tolerate a custom which is inherently intolerant does not make us tolerant. It makes us apologists of brutal oppression, rather than guardians of individual freedoms.

The burka is insulting to both men and women it implies men have no control over their actions with regard to sexuality and women; it also implies that women are a lesser gender that need to be controlled, albeit by the very men who cannot control themselves.

As you will know Turkey, Tunisia, and Tajikistan are Muslim-majority countries where the law prohibits the wearing of hijab in government buildings, schools, and universities.

In Tunisia, women were banned from wearing hijab in state offices in 1981 and in the 1980s and 1990s more restrictions were put in place.

Symbols that imply that women or men are lesser beings should not be seen or allowed become normalised in any democratic society. We here in Ireland are still struggling with gender equality and all other sorts of inequalities; the freedoms we have as individuals should not be usurped under false guises and traditions as they were in the not to distant past. Freedoms and rights which are allowed and sometimes abused by sectors of our society may eventually bring about a situation were some will lose the very rights that allowed the freedoms and rights to exist in the first place.

If the wearing of a burka was accepted we would be eroding the freedoms of all women and men;
The supreme right to gender equality supercedes the qualified right to religious freedom of expression, its as simply as that.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

The understanding generally appears to be that by accusing somebody with an opposing viewpoint of being motivated by hatred (or in this case, "islamophobia" too, whatever exactly that is), then the accuser is absolved of having to address any of the actual points raised.

The point I was making was the burqa ban was put forward by the Belgian government ostensibly to address a security issue. I don't believe that was the real reason it was put forward. Judging from all the argument going backward and forward on this thread about whether or not the burqa is a benefit or liability to muslim women, I don't really believe that anyone else here believes the Belgian government position either. Do you?

So if the Belgian government didn't look for the ban for security reasons, you then ask why did they look for the ban? Do you believe they did it because they're concerned about he best interests of Belgium's sum total of thirty burqa wearing women? Call me cynical, but I don't, which leaves me asking why did they do it? The best answer that I can think of is, like so many government decisions, they think it will get them votes. So why do they think this? Do they think the average Belgian voter is concerned about the well being of these women? Again, cynical, but I don't think so. I think like Two Tone from Limehouse's post, the government suspects that the voters simply don't like women wearing burqas in public. Simple as.

I'm not accusing anyone here of islamophobia, I'm simply noting that the stated reason for the ban has little or nothing to do with the welfare of Muslim women in Belgium. I also think that if burqas are to be banned, the reasons for doing so should be honest.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

sparkling sea wrote: »

The supreme right to gender equality supersedes the qualified right to religious freedom of expression, its as simply as that.

I don't know if I'd use the word supreme, but I'd certainly agree with the rest. It is a pity that this type of logic was not applied when looking for the ban in the first case, because it seems entirely reasonable and far more honest.

Frank Grimes

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Yes, I've seen that often in the region too, most memorably on a flight out of Tehran a few years back when some youngish woman took off her veil and flung it with disgust onto the plane's floor, where it stayed. Other flights were less demonstrative, but it happened all the time, all the same.

On the same trip, I ate in an underground restaurant in central Tehran and the woman on the next table had a very light, translucent veil carefully dangling from the very furthest back of where her hair was tied up behind her head. Shortly after she sat down, the waiter -- a man obviously -- came over and complained to her about it. A short, sharp exchange ensued which ended when she pulled it up over her head, only to have it drop back a short while later. So the waiter arrived over a second time to remonstrate more loudly, resulting in her pulling it up permanently. I've seen similar things in other countries in the middle east too.

I'm curious to know whether many of the (western) people who object to the ban have seen themselves the level of bullying directed at women that happens when restrictive dress codes become socially mandated in this fashion.

The dress code is also legally enforced in Iran. I've been there too and was told by Iranians that the establishments can be held liable if the dress codes are broken on the premises. One example was the hostel I stayed in when I was in Tehran, the guy running the place had to keep asking one of the guests to put her scarf on, he stated he couldn't care less personally what she did but if the authorities got wind of it he would be in trouble, I was told something similar by non-Muslim Iranians I met too. That was during one of the crack-down periods over there so they may have been over cautious (I do not know the exact legalities of it), plus I cannot speak for the reasons that waiter you mentioned had but the dress code there isn't just something that socially enforced.

kylith

robindch wrote: »

Yes, I've seen that often in the region too, most memorably on a flight out of Tehran a few years back when some youngish woman took off her veil and flung it with disgust onto the plane's floor, where it stayed. Other flights were less demonstrative, but it happened all the time, all the same.

On the same trip, I ate in an underground restaurant in central Tehran and the woman on the next table had a very light, translucent veil carefully dangling from the very furthest back of where her hair was tied up behind her head. Shortly after she sat down, the waiter -- a man obviously -- came over and complained to her about it. A short, sharp exchange ensued which ended when she pulled it up over her head, only to have it drop back a short while later. So the waiter arrived over a second time to remonstrate more loudly, resulting in her pulling it up permanently. I've seen similar things in other countries in the middle east too.

I'm curious to know whether many of the (western) people who object to the ban have seen themselves the level of bullying directed at women that happens when restrictive dress codes become socially mandated in this fashion.

I think it's very telling that in the 70s, when parts of the middle east were not under Taliban control, the women dressed in more western styles. If the wearing of a burka truly was a woman's choice one would expect to see them in evidence in the past but if you google images of Afghanistan in the 60s or 70s there's hardly a hijab in sight, and ne'er a burka to be found. Obviously there are many places where a dress code is now enforced by law, but if it's a choice why would it not have been chosen in the past?

And if women wearing it really was a free choice outside of the middle east why do no women ever appear to choose not to wear it for a day or two?

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

kylith wrote: »

I think it's very telling that in the 70s, when parts of the middle east were not under Taliban control, the women dressed in more western styles. If the wearing of a burka truly was a woman's choice one would expect to see them in evidence in the past but if you google images of Afghanistan in the 60s or 70s there's hardly a hijab in sight, and ne'er a burka to be found. Obviously there are many places where a dress code is now enforced by law, but if it's a choice why would it not have been chosen in the past?

You've possibly already seen it, but if not, Persopolis is an entertainng personal account of the increasingly repressive regime in Iran as seen through the eyes of a young girl. Pretty much concurs with what you've said above (and also one of my youngest's favourite movies so gets a regular airing in our house).

kylith

smacl wrote: »

You've possibly already seen it, but if not, Persopolis is an entertainng personal account of the increasingly repressive regime in Iran as seen through the eyes of a young girl. Pretty much concurs with what you've said above (and also one of my youngest's favourite movies so gets a regular airing in our house).

I haven't, but I've added it to my watchlist. Thanks.

clairefontaine

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

Tolerance seems to be the fashionable word these days. I remember a time, ins Guiliani when it was ZERO TOLERANCE.

Religions get away with things simply because they are religions, like the burkha, like circumcision, etc.

Examine what you tolerate.

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

I don't think anyone here is tolerating any of it

Piliger

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

sparkling sea wrote: »

To tolerate a custom which is inherently intolerant does not make us tolerant. It makes us apologists of brutal oppression, rather than guardians of individual freedoms.

The burka is insulting to both men and women it implies men have no control over their actions with regard to sexuality and women; it also implies that women are a lesser gender that need to be controlled, albeit by the very men who cannot control themselves.

As you will know Turkey, Tunisia, and Tajikistan are Muslim-majority countries where the law prohibits the wearing of hijab in government buildings, schools, and universities.

In Tunisia, women were banned from wearing hijab in state offices in 1981 and in the 1980s and 1990s more restrictions were put in place.

Symbols that imply that women or men are lesser beings should not be seen or allowed become normalised in any democratic society. We here in Ireland are still struggling with gender equality and all other sorts of inequalities; the freedoms we have as individuals should not be usurped under false guises and traditions as they were in the not to distant past. Freedoms and rights which are allowed and sometimes abused by sectors of our society may eventually bring about a situation were some will lose the very rights that allowed the freedoms and rights to exist in the first place.

If the wearing of a burka was accepted we would be eroding the freedoms of all women and men;
The supreme right to gender equality supercedes the qualified right to religious freedom of expression, its as simply as that.

A thoroughly excellent setting out of the reality of this appalling situation.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

clairefontaine wrote: »

Tolerance seems to be the fashionable word these days

I blame that damn Robinson woman and her Stockholm International Forum Combating Intolerance, I mean really what was she thinking? :rolleyes:

Gbear

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Not wishing to belabour the point, but the anti-burka brigade generally believe exactly the same thing, but disagree in this specific instance since they don't believe that the choice to wear the thing is, in any genuine sense, a free choice.

There is no logic that has been presented thus far that would allow the part in bold to be a factor in this debate.
What you're saying here is that you want the state to determine whether people are making a free choice and, if not, intervene.

While that does happen with mental illness and disability there has to be medical evidence backing that up - overruling someones autonomy is not trivial.

"A woman can't possibly have a free choice to wear the burka. Why? Because nobody with free choice would wear the burka." It's a clear tautology.

Empowering the state to make a decision to overrule your autonomy for arbitrary reasons is utterly insane. The logical end result is that the state can assert that something ought to be banned because no reasonable person would do said thing.

Who decides what "reasonable" is?

It feels very much to me that people have decided they don't like the burka (which is perfectly valid) but then cut corners with their use of logic in an effort to tack on arguments that support their preconceived opinion.

robindch wrote: »

Another way to look at it is to ask oneself the question:

Is the choice to wear the burka as free as the choice not to wear it? ie, is the choice equal?

Is any choice ever equal?
You can face censure from your peers for something as trivial as bad fashion sense. Any item of clothing carries baggage with it.

There's simply no way you can argue that a piece of clothing is inherently misogynistic. It's just ****ing cloth.
The problem with the burka isn't the clothing itself but the circumstances that generally surround the wearing of it.
For example, if the original function of the burka was that it was white and it kept people cool in the scorching heat of the Middle-East and it was retained as a purely social and cultural reminder of their heritage there wouldn't be a problem.

What you're really saying is that the burka contains a little bit too much baggage.
I don't see that as being anything other than an arbitrary distinction.
At what point does an item of clothing have sufficient social coercion associated with it that it should be banned?

gaynorvader

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

Gbear wrote: »

{...}

"A woman can't possibly have a free choice to wear the burka. Why? Because nobody with free choice would wear the burka." It's a clear tautology.

{...}

True, but what is being said is "A woman isn't making a free choice when wearing a burka. Why? Because when given a free choice, nobody wears a burka."

Free choice been used to mean any choice not influenced by societal or religious pressures.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

gaynorvader wrote: »

True, but what is being said is "A woman isn't making a free choice when wearing a burka. Why? Because when given a free choice, nobody wears a burka."

Free choice been used to mean any choice not influenced by societal or religious pressures.

Still logically flawed. People do things all the time that they'd rather not do, but it is still free choice. I'd rather not work so many hours as I do, but I need the money to support my family, life style and the ever hungry tax man. That I am under work pressure is a result of other life style choices, and also comes with other rewards.

Bottom line, being pressured into doing something does not equate to being forced to do something against your will.

Mark Hamill

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

Gbear wrote: »

Empowering the state to make a decision to overrule your autonomy for arbitrary reasons is utterly insane.

Which is why we disagree with the burka :rolleyes:.

Gbear wrote: »

Is any choice ever equal?

Some are a lot closer to equal to others.

Gbear wrote: »

What you're really saying is that the burka contains a little bit too much baggage.
I don't see that as being anything other than an arbitrary distinction.
At what point does an item of clothing have sufficient social coercion associated with it that it should be banned?

Arbitrary distinction? You think an item of clothing whose explicit function is to totally anonymise women to "protect" them from men who simply cannot control themselves is only arbitrarily distinct from any other piece of clothing?

robindch

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

Gbear wrote: »

It feels very much to me that people have decided they don't like the burka (which is perfectly valid) but then cut corners with their use of logic in an effort to tack on arguments that support their preconceived opinion.

It might be worth your reading back through the thread -- quite a few posters have provided very clear reasons why they approve of the ban, imperfect and all as most agree it is.

Mark Hamill

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

smacl wrote: »

Still logically flawed. People do things all the time that they'd rather not do, but it is still free choice. I'd rather not work so many hours as I do, but I need the money to support my family, life style and the ever hungry tax man. That I am under work pressure is a result of other life style choices, and also comes with other rewards.

But the pressure to wear the burka is not the same as the pressure to support you family or lifestyle by working a job you may not like. The pressure to work a job is self evident: you need money to live, so you are going to have to work. The pressure to wear the burka is not self-evident: the billions of women who don't wear it don't get raped by men who can't control themselves, they can assert their individuality and independence. The pressure is artificial, designed simply to make women anonymous and unseen.

smacl wrote: »

Bottom line, being pressured into doing something does not equate to being forced to do something against your will.

Actually it does. However the reason this isn't usually an issue, is because pressure can be a natural side effect of the environment you are in (you need to study to get good grades, you need money so you have to work etc. so you suffer through things you may not like). These are side effects of life. But that doesn't mean we can reject artificial pressures, designed only to oppress.


Do you know of any reasoning for the burka that isn't oppressive to women, insulting to men and self contradictory?

gaynorvader

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

smacl wrote: »

Still logically flawed. People do things all the time that they'd rather not do, but it is still free choice. I'd rather not work so many hours as I do, but I need the money to support my family, life style and the ever hungry tax man. That I am under work pressure is a result of other life style choices, and also comes with other rewards.

Bottom line, being pressured into doing something does not equate to being forced to do something against your will.

It's a choice, but not a free choice if you're pressured into making it. Your working hours example is a poor one, as you are choosing to do something you don't like doing in order to get something you want. You are making a compromise. You could decide to reduce your lifestyle and your hours if you wanted.

The point stands, when offered an unencumbered, free choice, no woman chooses to wear a burka.

To draw a rather extreme analogy; if you were told that if you blinded yourself, a kidnapper would not kill your family, I'd bet money you'd blind yourself, however, I would not call that a free choice. A choice, certainly, but not a free one.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Which is why we disagree with the burka :rolleyes:

Which is perfectly reasonable. It does not however bear any relationship whatsoever with the reason why the ban in Belgium was proposed, which related to security risk to the greater public. Whether the ban is right or wrong, it seems that it has been brought about under false pretenses. Sensitive legislation such as this requires clarity and honesty and I for one can't see it here.

clairefontaine brought up the point we should examine what we are willing to tolerate, and I tend to agree. I don't think the Belgian people are willing to tolerate women with burqas on their streets. The question remains why? I'm assuming most people here at this stage agree there is more to it than perceived security risk. Do you really believe the entire remainder is honest concern for the welfare of the burqa wearing women, because quite frankly, I don't.

People seem keen to dodge this question. We're the stated reasons for the ban the whole reason or even the major part of it? If not, what was the primary motivator?

inocybe

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

smacl wrote: »

Which is perfectly reasonable. It does not however bear any relationship whatsoever with the reason why the ban in Belgium was proposed, which related to security risk to the greater public. Whether the ban is right or wrong, it seems that it has been brought about under false pretenses. Sensitive legislation such as this requires clarity and honesty and I for one can't see it here.

clairefontaine brought up the point we should examine what we are willing to tolerate, and I tend to agree. I don't think the Belgian people are willing to tolerate women with burqas on their streets. The question remains why? I'm assuming most people here at this stage agree there is more to it than perceived security risk. Do you really believe the entire remainder is honest concern for the welfare of the burqa wearing women, because quite frankly, I don't.

People seem keen to dodge this question. We're the stated reasons for the ban the whole reason or even the major part of it? If not, what was the primary motivator?

Not me, I think that's a perfectly good reason. No different to banning motorbike helmets in shops and hoodies in shopping centres. People should be able to be identified by facial features.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The pressure to wear the burka is not self-evident: the billions of women who don't wear it don't get raped by men who can't control themselves, they can assert their individuality and independence.

The sad truth is that rape is endemic to very many societies, particularly poorer societies and despotic ones. The burqa in this instance is just a visual manifestation of a much larger problem that occurs across many male dominated societies, as can be seen more recently in India.

Do you know of any reasoning for the burka that isn't oppressive to women, insulting to men and self contradictory?

Yes, actually, though not particularly relevant to this discussion. On a walking holiday some years back in Morocco, the local berber women covered their faces and all exposed flesh. It makes a lot of sense in the desert. The men did it too. So did I. The origin of a lot this gear is quite functional, its use in a modern northern European context is not.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

inocybe wrote: »

Not me, I think that's a perfectly good reason. No different to banning motorbike helmets in shops and hoodies in shopping centres. People should be able to be identified by facial features.

No argument there, so why is it called a burqa ban where among a population of some millions there are apparently just 30 women that wear a burqa? Should be called the helmet / face scarf / hoody / ski-mask at a bank till ban. Or somesuch.

inocybe

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

smacl wrote: »

No argument there, so why is it called a burqa ban where among a population of some millions there are apparently just 30 women that wear a burqa? Should be called the helmet / face scarf / hoody / ski-mask at a bank till ban. Or somesuch.

I don't think it is called a burka ban.... a quick google turned up this.
The Act of 1 June 2011 renders it an offence to publicly “cover or conceal one's face in whole or in part, so that one is unrecognisable”

sparkling sea

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

smacl wrote: »

Which is perfectly reasonable. It does not however bear any relationship whatsoever with the reason why the ban in Belgium was proposed, which related to security risk to the greater public. Whether the ban is right or wrong, it seems that it has been brought about under false pretenses. Sensitive legislation such as this requires clarity and honesty and I for one can't see it here.

clairefontaine brought up the point we should examine what we are willing to tolerate, and I tend to agree. I don't think the Belgian people are willing to tolerate women with burqas on their streets. The question remains why? I'm assuming most people here at this stage agree there is more to it than perceived security risk. Do you really believe the entire remainder is honest concern for the welfare of the burqa wearing women, because quite frankly, I don't.

People seem keen to dodge this question. We're the stated reasons for the ban the whole reason or even the major part of it? If not, what was the primary motivator?

A flim like the Blair Witch Project may answer the question as to why the burqa is seen as a security risk. You don't seem to understand why fear of what is imagined can be a bigger security risk, its an unintended consequence but a positive in this case.

People who experiementally wear a burqa for a day to gain some understanding of the tradition almost always say that they find it a frightening and oppressive experience; what frightens them most is how afraid the general community are of them.

All that being said it really is an equality issue and all people deserve protection against an oppressive and gender debaseing garment such as a burqa even they don't fully understand why.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

sparkling sea wrote: »

A flim like the Blair Witch Project may answer the question as to why the burqa is seen as a security risk. You don't seem to understand why fear of what is imagined can be a bigger security risk, its an unintended consequence but a positive in this case.

People who experiementally wear a burqa for a day to gain some understanding of the tradition almost always say that they find it a frightening and oppressive experience; what frightens them most is how afraid the general community are of them.

All that being said it really is an equality issue and all people deserve protection against an oppressive and gender debaseing garment such as a burqa even they don't fully understand why.

All seems logical. People in western societies have an irrational fear of women wearing burqas. This fear is palpable to the women wearing burqas, and as such oppressive to them as well. The irrational fear is rationalised and cosied up by politicians in such a way as to make their electorate comfortable. This comfort factor is re-enforced by those telling them that the burqa is also a violation of them women's rights.

It would seem more honest that for the reasons stated, the larger population is simply not happy for women to wear burqas in their society, in much the same way as they're not happy with people walking around naked, and legislate on that basis. What's happened seems like a seedy compromise, but then that's nothing new for politics.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

inocybe wrote: »

I don't think it is called a burka ban.... a quick google turned up this.
The Act of 1 June 2011 renders it an offence to publicly “cover or conceal one's face in whole or in part, so that one is unrecognisable”

Fair enough. So why are people talking about a burqa ban, when burqa wearers actually form a tiny minority of the people it potentially addresses? I wonder how many cyclists wearing face scarves in the cold weather will be arrested for example. My point is that it seems dishonest in what it purports to be. I think it is a burqa ban dressed up as something less objectionable.

traciwil

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I agree, the moral qualms of a society shouldn't be imposed by law.

Its a slippery slope.

I respectfully disagree! :mad: