Burka ban

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

gaynorvader wrote: »

So, what you're saying is, if we were in a truly free society everyone would be walking around naked with only face coverings on!

Not sure about face coverings, but Ireland is quite a bit more liberal than it used to be. NSFW, may contain nuts. What a great morning out that was!

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Piliger wrote: »

Your 'argument' is just patronising silly juvenile nonsense. I don't believe for one moment that this is an honest argument at all. Not one bit. No one could be that challenged.

And your's is balanced, clear and concise. Well done you.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

MrPudding wrote: »

Would she get through security like that? For get security, she would not even get served in a petrol station dressed like that. If we started having a conversation would she pull her scarf down?

MrP

Nope, probably not. But walking down the street in Dublin, would she cause offence to anyone? Walking down the street in Paris or Antwerp, would she get the type grief from the local police that a burqa wearing woman would?

My points is simply that people react to the symbolism, and it makes them uncomfortable. Rather than own up to this, they rationalise what they are unhappy about in other ways. After all, in Catholic Ireland, we're past masters at turning a blind eye at things that make us uncomfortable, and finding excuses as to why it is not really our problem.

gaynorvader

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

smacl wrote: »

Nope, probably not. But walking down the street in Dublin, would she cause offence to anyone? Walking down the street in Paris or Antwerp, would she get the type grief from the local police that a burqa wearing woman would?

My points is simply that people react to the symbolism, and it makes them uncomfortable. Rather than own up to this, they rationalise what they are unhappy about in other ways. After all, in Catholic Ireland, we're past masters at turning a blind eye at things that make us uncomfortable, and finding excuses as to why it is not really our problem.

Paris probably not, Antwerp, according to the new law, yes.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

gaynorvader wrote: »

Paris probably not, Antwerp, according to the new law, yes.

Considering the anti-ban riots in Brussels and subsequent bounties offered by right wing groups to catch burqa wearers, it seems likely any further arrests, if they happen at all, will be limited to muslim women. Cycling is also hugely popular in Belgium, and many cycle commuters will wear headscarves in the winter. I'd guess sales in Belgium for this model are on the decline though.

From the world socialist web;

WSW wrote:

European-wide moves to demonise Islam aim to divide the working class and undermine opposition to imperialist wars in countries with large Muslim populations. Belgian forces have been deployed in Afghanistan, and Belgium is currently providing air and naval support to NATO actions against Libya.

The burqa ban demonstrates the extent to which extreme right-wing tendencies have been welcomed into the political mainstream. Overt racism is no longer confined to the political periphery. It has become respectable.

Don't get me wrong here, I take Mark Hamill's point that Islam in many of the countries where it is dominant has an appalling record for human rights, and in many cases treats women as second class citizens. That way of life is not compatible with how we live in the west, and needs to be addressed if we want a pluralist multicultural society. We're also still getting out from under our own local religious repression and discrimination at the same time, so it is not unreasonable to be suspicious of the entry of another fundamentalist religious group into the fray. IMHO, burqa bans simply serve to polarise sides into factions in this regard, whereas what is needed is a bit more honest dialog to understand the standards we aspire to in our society.

I believe that is what this discussion is actually about, and the rest is smoke and mirrors. YMMV.

Banbh

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

what is needed is a bit more honest dialog

Your suggestion is offensive to the posters who have patiently (too patiently in my opinion) followed you through all the hoops of your defence of the indefensible.

Valmont

I'm religious and support the ban

The anti-burkha brigade has an arugment that is ultimately subjectively rooted in western ideals. It is based on the premise that no woman would willingly choose to wear a burkha therefore those that do must be disproportionately coerced or bullied into doing so.

Nevermind that an enlightened nudist from Carlow could ask the same question of the women from Roscommon, using the exact same argument as Mark Hamill and Robindch. The women on this man's nudist colony are happy, free, and very in tune with progressive women's issues. Why then would these women from Roscommon wear clothes when going nude is so infinitely superior? Well of course they must be victims of their cultural environment and evil men-folk! The council of nudists must ride in with a new decree that all woman are to be stripped naked for their own good and if they say they prefer wearing clothes then tough, most of them are probably lying anyway.

Could you all just be honest and instead of pretending to be so concerned for the women you want to arrest and imprison for disobeying your clothing decrees just come out and say you hate and/or are scared of Islam?

Taking Robindch's critera of a 'free choice' to its logical extreme should compel us to nationalise all children as the only way on ensuring freedom from malicious religious influences. This way the children can all be raised in religion-free state orphanages and when they are eighteen and released so that they might be able to make a 'free' choice towards adopting a religion. This would protect them from religious 'bullies', religious parents, a religious up-bringing, etc. It seems the ultimate irony to re-conceive the idea of 'free-choice' in such a way as to legitimise a gross violation of what we would like to think should be a choice free from coercion, the freedom to wear what we want. In this way the atheists here are simply proposing to replace one coercive and oppressive force (Islam) with their own (secular liberalism).

I think that whatever the solution is going to be for oppressed Muslim women it will have to be more than replacing the fist of Islam with the boot of the state. Violence is not the answer!

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

Your suggestion is offensive to the posters who have patiently (too patiently in my opinion) followed you through all the hoops of your defence of the indefensible.

And your post screams, "I don't like what you're saying, so shut up", as does Pilliger's last post, but neither make any effort to address the points I've raised. Nor am I even sure what you think is indefensible because I've been at pains to include relevant references. Let me re-iterate what it is I've said that you find so offensive, and why I take the stance I do;

- Of those people who find burqa offensive, many have no specific concerns for the welfare of the women who wear them. For example;

clairefontaine wrote: »

My opposition to the burkha is practical and for security, it has nothing to do with the welfare of Muslim women, or ideology blah blah blah. Show your face. That's it.

Two Tone from Limehouse wrote: »

I'm not really bothered whether banning it helps them or not. It should be banned because to me, as a non Muslim living in a western society the Burkha is damn right offensive.

- Human rights organisations such as amnesty international take the stance that burqa bans are a violation of human rights and do not benefit the welfare of burqa wearing women.

- Socialist organisations such as the WSW point out the burqa bans tend to come from right wing governments, as an attack on Islam.

- Newspaper reports from France and Belgium show increased tension, violence, and riots between muslim and non-muslim communities following on from bans.

- Many western people connect giving Islam free reign with terrorism;

robindch wrote: »

Can't help but notice in passing that the UK's has (a) unlike the French, failed to stop religious fanatics from preaching and doing pretty what they want with and amongst their flocks with little or no state interference and (b) again, unlike the French, has produced quite a few home-grown religiously-inspired terrorists. No idea whether the two are connected causally, but it seems at least plausible that they might be.

and note very high levels of human rights abuses in Islamic regimes;

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Sorry misread Cabaals source there.
Data on places like Afghanistan, or middle eastern countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan, which all have compulsory veiling, all show that women in these countries are subject to violence and the burka doesn't stop this at all (especially when the violence is for not wearing the burka properly).

I don't dispute either of these issues in relation to Islam. Having worked and travelled in a number of Islamic states, I tend to concur with them to a large degree. What I'm at a loss to see is how a burqa ban in Belgium is going to help oppressed women in Saudi or the Sudan. What it does illustrate are concerns over Islam, much broader than a piece of clothing, that people to not want to see repeated at a local level.

As I see it broader measures than a simple burqa ban are needed in terms of letting people know what is and is not acceptable in our society, and this is best done through dialog.

So be offended. But maybe also come up with a cogent argument as to what it is I seem to be missing here that you find so offensive.

sparkling sea

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

smacl wrote: »

Considering the anti-ban riots in Brussels and subsequent bounties offered by right wing groups to catch burqa wearers, it seems likely any further arrests, if they happen at all, will be limited to muslim women. Cycling is also hugely popular in Belgium, and many cycle commuters will wear headscarves in the winter. I'd guess sales in Belgium for this model are on the decline though.

From the world socialist web;



Don't get me wrong here, I take Mark Hamill's point that Islam in many of the countries where it is dominant has an appalling record for human rights, and in many cases treats women as second class citizens. That way of life is not compatible with how we live in the west, and needs to be addressed if we want a pluralist multicultural society. We're also still getting out from under our own local religious repression and discrimination at the same time, so it is not unreasonable to be suspicious of the entry of another fundamentalist religious group into the fray. IMHO, burqa bans simply serve to polarise sides into factions in this regard, whereas what is needed is a bit more honest dialog to understand the standards we aspire to in our society.

I believe that is what this discussion is actually about, and the rest is smoke and mirrors. YMMV.

I have to ask do you believe the burqa should or should not be banned?

While I fully understand that security reasons argument may be weak and the religious issue is dubious; the equality issue is paramount for the good of everyone.

Religious ethos was used to destroy the lives of many people in Ireland up until very recently, the public though turning a blind eye almost colluded with the religious orders; worse still our government linked the religous with all that was good and caring and even when the religous crimes became public knowledge, tolerance of the intolerant was the order of the day for quite some time and still is for some.

Outlawing the burqa and the niqab may mean some women suffer but these women are suffering anyway and our tolerance isn't helping. Like the accpetability of domestic violence in years gone by, turning a blind eye or even worse still tolerating the intolerable did not empower any one and just made things seem normal. Support networks, infrastructure, education, applying the law and public condemnation are the factors that made domestic violence unacceptable and criminal for men and women. Domestic violence is still a problem but the law is on the side of the victim now and not the pretetrator; the public are on the side of the victim and public policy lets the victim know this.

The burqa and niqab are similiar to a punch or a kick and while you will always get some people who can find excuses for those who perpetrate these types of crimes; the law should firmly state that its unacceptable and an afront to all of society and follow it up with services needed for this type of domestic violence.

Mark Hamill

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

Valmont wrote: »

The anti-burkha brigade has an arugment that is ultimately subjectively rooted in western ideals. It is based on the premise that no woman would willingly choose to wear a burkha therefore those that do must be disproportionately coerced or bullied into doing so.

Look, I know the thread is really long at this stage, but you could read back a page or two and see this has been addressed. The premise is not that "no woman would willingly choose to wear a burkha...", its that no women does willingly choose to wear the burka. Take away the religious indoctrination and people simply don't choose to wear the burka, it is purely a religious item of clothing.

Taking Robindch's critera of a 'free choice' to its logical extreme..

"logical extreme" is kind of an oxymoron, dont you think?

Mark Hamill

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

smacl wrote: »

I don't dispute either of these issues in relation to Islam. Having worked and travelled in a number of Islamic states, I tend to concur with them to a large degree. What I'm at a loss to see is how a burqa ban in Belgium is going to help oppressed women in Saudi or the Sudan.

What about oppressed women in Belgium. Besides, if more and more western states come out against the burka, would that not put pressure on the oppressive islamic states to come out against it too?

smacl wrote: »

As I see it broader measures than a simple burqa ban are needed in terms of letting people know what is and is not acceptable in our society, and this is best done through dialog.

So be offended. But maybe also come up with a cogent argument as to what it is I seem to be missing here that you find so offensive.

I said it before, dialogue is useless if the women are indoctrinated to not listen to you or controlled by men and not allowed to listen to you.

Banbh

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

And your post screams, "I don't like what you're saying, so shut up", as does Pilliger's last post

Now you're being silly.

sparkling sea

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

There may be people with a burqa fetish but as with most fetishes they are for your own stimulation and can't and maybe shouldn't be shared with the public at large.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

sparkling sea wrote: »

I have to ask do you believe the burqa should or should not be banned?

While I fully understand that security reasons argument may be weak and the religious issue is dubious; the equality issue is paramount for the good of everyone.

Religious ethos was used to destroy the lives of many people in Ireland up until very recently, the public though turning a blind eye almost colluded with the religious orders; worse still our government linked the religous with all that was good and caring and even when the religous crimes became public knowledge, tolerance of the intolerant was the order of the day for quite some time and still is for some.

Outlawing the burqa and the niqab may mean some women suffer but these women are suffering anyway and our tolerance isn't helping. Like the accpetability of domestic violence in years gone by, turning a blind eye or even worse still tolerating the intolerable did not empower any one and just made things seem normal. Support networks, infrastructure, education, applying the law and public condemnation are the factors that made domestic unacceptable and criminal for men and women. Domestic violence is still a problem but the law is on the side of the victim now and not the pretetrator; the public are on the side of the victim and public policy lets the victim know this.

The burqa and niqab are similiar to a punch or a kick and while you will always get some people who can find excuses for those who perpetrate these types of crimes; the law should firmly state that its unacceptable and an afront to all of society and follow it up with services needed for this type of domestic violence.

I requoted your whole post here, because I think it deserves a second read in the context of what we're talking about.

Yes, I'd like to see burqa wearing banned in western society, but I'd like to see bans to come primarily from the indigenous tolerant muslim majority as part of their role in responsibly adapting to a pluralist society. This requires dialog with the muslim community covering the many reasons westerners find the burqa offensive. I think it is of critical importance not to polarise opinion against a religious minority of any kind, unless you plan to remove them from society altogether.

I take your point about being knee deep in our own religious scandals and repressions, and that many here see the parallels to the burqa in Islamic tradition. This is another perfectly good reason why we don't want burqas in our country.

What I would hate to see happen is a burqa ban come into being as a knee jerk reaction from a right wing government as it has in Belgium, as a pretense of the burqa raising security concerns. In my opinion, this is dishonest, plain and simple, and leads to a rift between communities that can develop into more serious problems as seen in France and Belgium.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What about oppressed women in Belgium. Besides, if more and more western states come out against the burka, would that not put pressure on the oppressive islamic states to come out against it too?

I'd guess there are lots of oppressed women in Belgium, as there are in many places. However, the opening post states that all of thirty women in the country of Belgium wore the burqa at the time the ban was introduced. It is also worth repeating that the bans stated purpose was entirely to address security concerns, and makes not mention of women's welfare.

Forgive the cynicism, but I very much doubt that a Belgian burqa ban is likely to spread to Saudi or the Sudan any time soon.

I said it before, dialogue is useless if the women are indoctrinated to not listen to you or controlled by men and not allowed to listen to you.

The alternative to dialog is force and coercion, which tend to spark a tinderbox of unpleasant reaction and counter reaction. I think you have to exhaust all possible amicable solutions via dialog before taking the brute force approach.

clairefontaine

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

I think it should be like the smoking laws. Smoking is not illegal, but there are only certain places you can do it. I already mentioned the contexts where the burkha should not be permitted.

Gbear

I'm religious and support the ban

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think it should be like the smoking laws. Smoking is not illegal, but there are only certain places you can do it. I already mentioned the contexts where the burkha should not be permitted.

Not quite analogous - smoking is banned for the sake of people other than the smoker. Second hand smoke forces others to smoke when they don't want to.

If smoking didn't emit any smoke there'd be no reason to restrict it.

clairefontaine

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

Gbear wrote: »

Not quite analogous - smoking is banned for the sake of people other than the smoker. Second hand smoke forces others to smoke when they don't want to.

If smoking didn't emit any smoke there'd be no reason to restrict it.

Like I said, airplanes, public transportation, playgrounds, schools, and retailers should have the right to refuse service or admissions, and if a cop pulls you over, you should be obliged to show your face.

Banbh

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

...and leads to a rift between communities that can develop into more serious problems as seen in France and Belgium.

I don't accept that society should be divided into 'communities'. We don't have them yet in Ireland but allowing a religion to mask its female members so they cannot interact with other citizens and neighbours is a sure way of introducing this division.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

I don't accept that society should be divided into 'communities'. We don't have them yet in Ireland but allowing a religion to mask its female members so they cannot interact with other citizens and neighbours is a sure way of introducing this division.

Sorry, we don't have who in Ireland? We most certainly have muslims in Ireland, though they represent a small enough minority and I'm not aware of any reasons that demographic is likely to change significantly in the future. I also came across a women in a naqib in Aldi a couple of days ago, so that element is also present, though no idea to what extent.

In European countries with significant muslim populations, the case is that many tend to congregate and form own communities, in much the same way the Irish diaspora did in America in the past, and still do to a lesser extent. Where it is desirable is a different question entirely, as is whether we could change it.

sparkling sea

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

Gbear wrote: »

Not quite analogous - smoking is banned for the sake of people other than the smoker. Second hand smoke forces others to smoke when they don't want to.

If smoking didn't emit any smoke there'd be no reason to restrict it.

Its a good analogy so we differ in opinion on this; the burqa should be banned for the sake of people as well as the wearer. Burqa wearing forces others to tolerate gender bias when they don't want to.

If the burqa didn't emit gender inequality there be no reason to wear it therefore no restriction would be needed.

Like smoking the burqa is harmful to all in society and like smoking some don't directly notice the harm being caused to them and everyone else.

sparkling sea

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

clairefontaine wrote: »

Like I said, airplanes, public transportation, playgrounds, schools, and retailers should have the right to refuse service or admissions, and if a cop pulls you over, you should be obliged to show your face.

Can't agree with you here, its a symbol that markedly points to women being the lesser gender - that's intolerable and should never be accepted in an educated and equal society such as ours. The wearing of a burqa infringes on all the fundemental prinicples of a democratic society namely liberty, equality and fraternity. These are priciples that should not be eroded in the name of pandering to any religion or sector of society.

These are principles that were hard won and should never be allowed to be diluted.

clairefontaine

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

sparkling sea wrote: »

Can't agree with you here, its a symbol that markedly points to women being the lesser gender - that's intolerable and should never be accepted in an educated and equal society such as ours. The wearing of a burqa infringes on all the fundemental prinicples of a democratic society namely liberty, equality and fraternity. These are priciples that should not be eroded in the name of pandering to any religion or sector of society.

These are principles that were hard won and should never be allowed to be diluted.

When we go down the "what's right for women road" you are down a bottomless pit of legislation. Ban plastic surgery? High heels?

I'd rather stay on the safety and security road. And respect for the public space. There are dress codes in place. Women can't go around topless either.

sparkling sea

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

clairefontaine wrote: »

When we go down the "what's right for women road" you are down a bottomless pit of legislation. Ban plastic surgery? High heels?

I'd rather stay on the safety and security road. And respect for the public space. There are dress codes in place. Women can't go around topless either.

I have no idea of how you've managed to turn my answer into such a petty statement as the "what's right for women road" as you put it; anything that damages people, damages both sexes.

Dress code I think you may have missed the point; the burqa is not dress code thats not the point of a burqa, if it was just dress code it probably wouldn't exist except in fancy dress.

Fundamental rights and liberty, equality and fraternity are the point; move away from these and there is no safety or security for anyone, everything become justifiable - as I've already said Hitler was democratically elected.

Banbh

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

Banbh: I don't accept that society should be divided into 'communities'. We don't have them yet in Ireland but allowing a religion to mask its female members so they cannot interact with other citizens and neighbours is a sure way of introducing this division.

Smacl: Sorry, we don't have who in Ireland? We most certainly have muslims in Ireland,

Let me make it simpler for you. I don't accept that society should be divided into 'communities'. We don't have them [that is, communities] yet in Ireland...

If we replace our common citizenship with membership of a 'community' we will end up with a cantonised society where different rules will apply to different groups of citizens. The word is most used by religious organisations in an effort to set their members apart from society. Catholic bishops are particularly fond of it and Muslims, though the latter also enforce distinctive facial hair and masks to keep their group from integrating.

Gbear

I'm religious and support the ban

sparkling sea wrote: »

Its a good analogy so we differ in opinion on this; the burqa should be banned for the sake of people as well as the wearer. Burqa wearing forces others to tolerate gender bias when they don't want to.

If the burqa didn't emit gender inequality there be no reason to wear it therefore no restriction would be needed.

Like smoking the burqa is harmful to all in society and like smoking some don't directly notice the harm being caused to them and everyone else.

OK, lets break this down into a few different arguments that are at play here.

1) Is the "badness" inflicted on society comparable to the "badness" of second hand smoke?
No.
The effects of second hand smoke are tangible, physical affects on people.
The logic behind banning smoking at the expense of others is the same that prevents you from posioning them. Effectively, smoking at someone is miniature chemical warfare.

The "badness" you've highlighted with the burka is not tangible. It's extremely vague. I don't see which of my rights are being denied by walking past a woman wearing the burka, other than ones you've just made up.
You can directly tie smoke to a cigarette. It's a simple process.
The link between "item of clothing" and "mysogynistic bigotry" is far more tenuous. It's very little to do with item in question and an awful lot to do with the culture it stems from.

Now that doesn't mean by itself that the burka shouldn't be banned in general but it's not analagous to smoking and as such, you can't use the same arguments to argue for a ban.

2) Should the government strictly control what's right and wrong and what's "best" for society?

There's a pervasive notion across humanity that one bunch of people should decide what's best for others.
It's always on show in the various drug-related threads on AH. Quite a few people say that drugs should be illegal because they're bad. Essentially because they say so.

I find this line of thinking terrifying and moronic in equal measure.

As I discussed above, I don't think that you can equate the clear infringement of the rights of others that smoking causes to the nebulous sort of ill that the burka causes. There's no clear cause and effect relationship between a piece of clothing and misogyny.

So in order to justfy the ban what you're saying is, in somewhat arbitrary fashion, that the burka is just generally bad. Much like drugs, smoking and to a large extent, alcohol, I don't think most people would argue that it is bad.

That kind of logic can be applied to any debate.

"For the good of society" Russia has recently began an offensive against homosexuals. You might say "We're not Russia!", and you'd be right. But you'd completely miss the point.
There is a fundemental logical problem at the core of the concept that the govenrment should have the right to police what's right and wrong - who decides what is right and wrong. How is their decision justified?
There's no right answer to that question and there cannot be an infinitely wise regime or society so such a system is fundamentally open to unfairly infringing on the rights of others.

Logical consistency is, I'm sure most people here will agree, important.
The logically consistent position that endorses such state intervention implicily endorses the authority of governments that do things like imprison homosexuals because they've decided that the tyranny of the majority is fundamentally an acceptable position to take. You don't get to jump ship at your leisure just because said tyranny happens to upset you over certain issues but not others.


3)Is the choice to wear the burka a meaningful use of the word "choice"?
The other point raised and it's one that Rob and Mark Hammill have returned to is that the choice being made is no real choice at all.

As i've stated, there are good reasons to take away choice from people in general. I have personal experience in dealing with a relative with dementia. We had to take her financial autonomy away from her.
I have no moral qualms about such a practice. We did the right thing because to all itents and purposes, she cannot give consent any more.

However, other than tautalogical statements I don't think that anyone on this thread has presented any reason why we should equate being religious, being a muslim or something similar with dementia, psychosis or other mental disorders to the extent where we should interfere with their autonomy.

Unlike the legal process that has to be gone through and overseen by medical professionals, what's being suggested is that rights are being taken away from women with no oversight.

IT IS IRRELEVANT WHAT THAT RIGHT IS! IRRREEELLLLLEEEVVVANNNNTTTTT.
That the right in question is wearing the burka is no more relevant than if it were my right to slam a door on my own head. You don't get to decide which rights.

Unless you can first show why their rights ought to be taken away, why it should only be certaint specific rights like burka-wearing and not, for example, voting and also, why it shouldn't apply to all religious people, then your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

gaynorvader

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

clairefontaine wrote: »

When we go down the "what's right for women road" you are down a bottomless pit of legislation. Ban plastic surgery? High heels?

I'd rather stay on the safety and security road. And respect for the public space. There are dress codes in place. Women can't go around topless either.

Shame really that last bit. :pac:

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

Let me make it simpler for you. I don't accept that society should be divided into 'communities'. We don't have them [that is, communities] yet in Ireland...

You may need to give me your definition of communities so, because it seems to differ from my understanding of the word. I go with a social group within larger society in that individual members associate with, and hence consider themselves members. For example, boards.ie is a community. Community membership is considered by many, myself include to be an important part of society. We have lots of communities in Ireland, most people belong to one or more.

Mark Hamill

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

smacl wrote: »

I'd guess there are lots of oppressed women in Belgium, as there are in many places. However, the opening post states that all of thirty women in the country of Belgium wore the burqa at the time the ban was introduced. It is also worth repeating that the bans stated purpose was entirely to address security concerns, and makes not mention of women's welfare.

So we shouldn't try to help these women because there is only 30 of them? How many should there be before we act?

smacl wrote: »

Forgive the cynicism, but I very much doubt that a Belgian burqa ban is likely to spread to Saudi or the Sudan any time soon.

And dialogue concerning the burka will spread there? Why hasn't already spread there?

smacl wrote: »

The alternative to dialog is force and coercion, which tend to spark a tinderbox of unpleasant reaction and counter reaction. I think you have to exhaust all possible amicable solutions via dialog before taking the brute force approach.

Do you think there is still more dialogue to be had? Remembering how unwilling or unable the people involved are going to be to participate.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

sparkling sea wrote: »

Can't agree with you here, its a symbol that markedly points to women being the lesser gender - that's intolerable and should never be accepted in an educated and equal society such as ours. The wearing of a burqa infringes on all the fundamental principles of a democratic society namely liberty, equality and fraternity. These are principles that should not be eroded in the name of pandering to any religion or sector of society.

The highlighted bit I agree with entirely, as would most European citizens. So that begs the question why do human rights organisations such as amnesty oppose the ban. I certainly don't have the answer, but from what little I've read I suspect that it revolves around the actual effects damaging effects of imposing a ban versus the ideology of why a ban should be imposed. To my mind, silly and offensive as it seems to appear to many posters here, arriving at a ban through consensus seems like the best outcome for an evolved society.

While espousing liberty, equality and fraternity in best French tradition, it is also worth remembering that these three can come into conflict. The difference you have with the likes of amnesty could also be favouring egalitarianism over a more libertarian viewpoint. As per my previous post, I don't for a moment believe this is a simple right and wrong issue.