Burka ban

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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

But Belgian legislation isn't there to help these women, it is there to neutralise the threat they represent to Belgian society. Hence my objection to it.

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

Nope. I doubt any burqa related legislation will make the slightest positive difference. Legislation arrived at in concert with local muslim communities might make less negative difference. Or not.

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.

I'm not aware of what level of dialogue the Belgian government had with their half a million muslim citizens as part of arriving at the ban. Given that burqa wearers represent such a tiny majority, I'm surprised that consensus couldn't be reached. I've no idea whether it was even attempted, are you?

Mark Hamill

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

smacl wrote: »

But Belgian legislation isn't there to help these women, it is there to neutralise the threat they represent to Belgian society. Hence my objection to it.

You were asking about how this ban helps oppressed women in Sudan or Saudi Arabia. Why are you now changing the subject back to security threats?
Although looking back, I see now that the whole "helping of women in Sudan and Saudi Arabia" was changing the subject too. Sudan and Saudi Arabia were only brought up to show that the burka has no effect in reducing the violence on women (it increases it, when women can be punished for not wearing it properly) and that it came from the male religious leaders blaming the female victims, not the female victims themselves.

While it would be great if any legislation brought it in in a European country effected other, non European, countries in a beneficial way, thats not a prerequisite for making it.

smacl wrote: »

I'm not aware of what level of dialogue the Belgian government had with their half a million muslim citizens as part of arriving at the ban. Given that burqa wearers represent such a tiny majority, I'm surprised that consensus couldn't be reached. I've no idea whether it was even attempted, are you?

You don't know if the Belgium (or any western) government communicated in some way that sexual discrimination is bad to its muslim (if not all) citizens?

Btw, I assumed we were talking about dialogue in a general sense, to combat the sexual discrimination that the burka wholly represents and embodies, not dialogue specific to the devising of the ban in Belgium.

sparkling sea

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

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.

And we are back to the beginning and so I will leave it at this- Russia tolerating the inherently intolerable; its brutal oppression.

The idenification of a priest with a dog collar allowed for atrocities that were immeasurable - item of clothing and mysogynistic bigotry can be inextricably linked there is nothing tenuous about it,


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 fundamental and supreme right to gender equality supercedes the qualified right to religious freedom of expression, its as simply as that.

AlanS181824

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

Ban the burqa! All the way!

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You were asking about how this ban helps oppressed women in Sudan or Saudi Arabia. Why are you now changing the subject back to security threats?
Although looking back, I see now that the whole "helping of women in Sudan and Saudi Arabia" was changing the subject too. Sudan and Saudi Arabia were only brought up to show that the burka has no effect in reducing the violence on women (it increases it, when women can be punished for not wearing it properly) and that it came from the male religious leaders blaming the female victims, not the female victims themselves.

While it would be great if any legislation brought it in in a European country effected other, non European, countries in a beneficial way, thats not a prerequisite for making it.


You don't know if the Belgium (or any western) government communicated in some way that sexual discrimination is bad to its muslim (if not all) citizens?

Btw, I assumed we were talking about dialogue in a general sense, to combat the sexual discrimination that the burka wholly represents and embodies, not dialogue specific to the devising of the ban in Belgium.

The posts that I made that seem to be causing so much offense simply pointed out that the Belgian ban was brought in under false pretenses. It solely addresses the threat to public security brought about be full face veils, it does not deal in any sense with equality or welfare of muslim women living in Belgium. However, as per the opening post and all subsequent posts in this thread, and the wider media and web coverage, the ban is referred to and considered a burqa ban. The broad consensus from the BBC and other media sources, through Amnesty and other human rights organisations, various socialist groups, not to mention a number of posters on this thread is that the ban came in place specifically to prevent wearing the burqa in public. The fact that the ban may, in the eyes of some, be removing a symbol of inequality and repression does not hide the fact that it was clearly brought in under false pretenses. Speculation form a wide number of sources suggest that this goes beyond egalitarian concerns, and include discussions of xenophobia, racism and islamophobia. Regardless of whether the Belgian ban ends up being for the greater good or not, I consider it unethical, as from my world view, the ends do not justify the means.

The bulk of the objection to the burqa in this thread however relates to inequality and women's welfare associated with wearing the burqa in a worldwide context. Saudi, Sudan and Afghanistan were introduced into the thread by you here. My response was simply that European burqa legislation is not going to have any effect in these regimes.

Anyway, I've stated my position as clearly as I can manage and have nothing more to add. In not sure what it is that I've posted that people find so offensive other than challenging their entrenched positions and views, which from where I'm sitting border on religious fervor. Good luck with it, I'm outa here.

gaynorvader

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

smacl wrote: »

The posts that I made that seem to be causing so much offense simply pointed out that the Belgian ban was brought in under false pretenses. It solely addresses the threat to public security brought about be full face veils, it does not deal in any sense with equality or welfare of muslim women living in Belgium. However, as per the opening post and all subsequent posts in this thread, and the wider media and web coverage, the ban is referred to and considered a burqa ban. The broad consensus from the BBC and other media sources, through Amnesty and other human rights organisations, various socialist groups, not to mention a number of posters on this thread is that the ban came in place specifically to prevent wearing the burqa in public. The fact that the ban may, in the eyes of some, be removing a symbol of inequality and repression does not hide the fact that it was clearly brought in under false pretenses. Speculation form a wide number of sources suggest that this goes beyond egalitarian concerns, and include discussions of xenophobia, racism and islamophobia. Regardless of whether the Belgian ban ends up being for the greater good or not, I consider it unethical, as from my world view, the ends do not justify the means.

The bulk of the objection to the burqa in this thread however relates to inequality and women's welfare associated with wearing the burqa in a worldwide context. Saudi, Sudan and Afghanistan were introduced into the thread by you here. My response was simply that European burqa legislation is not going to have any effect in these regimes.

Anyway, I've stated my position as clearly as I can manage and have nothing more to add. In not sure what it is that I've posted that people find so offensive other than challenging their entrenched positions and views, which from where I'm sitting border on religious fervor. Good luck with it, I'm outa here.

I would ask how many Belgians are in your sample bias when referring to the ban being brought in under false pretences. Perhaps the Belgians have a different view on this and there is a problem with people going around committing crimes when their faces are covered?

Mark Hamill

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

smacl wrote: »

The bulk of the objection to the burqa in this thread however relates to inequality and women's welfare associated with wearing the burqa in a worldwide context. Saudi, Sudan and Afghanistan were introduced into the thread by you here. My response was simply that European burqa legislation is not going to have any effect in these regimes.

Actually, I brought up Saudi Arabia and Sudan here, to demonstrate how the burka is an oppressive tool of men which exacerbates violence against women, in response to your claim that the pressure to wear the burka is a self-evident, visual manifestation of endemic rape.

No one ever said any European legislation either should be made to effect Sudan or Saudi Arabia, or that this piece of legislation would, that is a strawman that you brought into the discussion. That we, in Europe, can't legislate for something in the Middle East is no reason for us not legislate for it here.

smacl wrote: »

In not sure what it is that I've posted that people find so offensive other than challenging their entrenched positions and views, which from where I'm sitting border on religious fervor.

You don't know how you are offending people, you are just strawmanning and insulting their views? Sure you don't :rolleyes:.

Look, I am not offended by your arguments, they are just bad. I am not entrenched in my view, I have no fervor for it, I have asked repeatedly what alternatives people think we should do instead of a ban, but no-one ever really sticks around to discuss them.

Banbh

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

Originally Posted by smacl
In not sure what it is that I've posted that people find so offensive other than challenging their entrenched positions and views, which from where I'm sitting border on religious fervor.

Challenging? No. Repetitious and tedious? Yes.
Religious fervour? Time to move your seat.

miissjuly

They are humans.. they breathe.. they choose what they want to wear as long as it's not harming anybody else. People are getting paid to be naked and here people are getting fined for being covered. It's their choice! It isn't going to kill you if you see someone wearing a burka. About hiding identity.. covering the face isn't compulsory yet many women do. No one should have to abandon their culture/religion to "fit in".

Banbh

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

They are humans.. they breathe

True but they are also prisoners - prisoners of a religious culture that regards them as lesser humans, that isolates them from the community in which they live to restrict them to associate only with others of that religion. If they rebel and assert their rights they are punished with beatings and disfigurement. Everyone should make an effort to be part of society - it is essential to maintain civil interaction and even civilisation itself.

Piliger

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

Banbh wrote: »

True but they are also prisoners - prisoners of a religious culture that regards them as lesser humans, that isolates them from the community in which they live to restrict them to associate only with others of that religion. If they rebel and assert their rights they are punished with beatings and disfigurement. Everyone should make an effort to be part of society - it is essential to maintain civil interaction and even civilisation itself.

That is the outrageous and grotesque thing about this abuse.

Cabaal

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

From the people that force women to cover their face comes....

driving risks damaging women's ovaries

Yes, I'm not making it up, Women who drive risk damaging their ovaries and producing children with clinical problems, according to a conservative Saudi cleric.

I guess its kind of like the idea that if women think it could damage their little brains or other stupid silly ideas,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24323934

"If a woman drives a car, not out of pure necessity, that could have negative physiological impacts as functional and physiological medical studies show that it automatically affects the ovaries and pushes the pelvis upwards," Sheikh Lohaidan told the news website Sabq.org.

kylith

it automatically affects the ovaries and pushes the pelvis upwards

As does sitting.

sparkling sea

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

If everyone wore a burqa would it present a security risk, it would be near on impossible to identify anyone?

sparkling sea

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

smacl wrote: »

The fact that the ban may, in the eyes of some, be removing a symbol of inequality and repression does not hide the fact that it was clearly brought in under false pretenses. Speculation form a wide number of sources suggest that this goes beyond egalitarian concerns, and include discussions of xenophobia, racism and islamophobia. Regardless of whether the Belgian ban ends up being for the greater good or not, I consider it unethical, as from my world view, the ends do not justify the means.

The wearing of a burqa to begin with would surely fail under the above test; how does one justify the wearing of a burqa, do the means justify the end ?

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

sparkling sea wrote: »

The wearing of a burqa to begin with would surely fail under the above test; how does one justify the wearing of a burqa, do the means justify the end ?

That's the conundrum. If the good people of Belgium agreed with your stance, many of whom probably do, why state other reasons for bringing in the ban in the first instance? And why are human rights and pro-democracy organisations so against it? In this context, it's worth reading a bit on the challenge to the constitutionality of the ban and the reasons it was upheld, where women's rights were sited very much as you are doing here. This again prompts the question, why wasn't the ban brought it on this platform in the first place.

My strong suspicion is that it the underlying motivation was to stem Islamification, as per Dade's earlier post.

Dades wrote: »

I don't think a ban is "right" per se, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't happy with some unnecessary measure that stems Islamification.

There. I've said it.

FWIW, it is a sentiment I tend to agree with, ignoble in many respects as it is. I also think it is a sentiment more commonly held than voiced, and there are those who are looking for a bit of moral high ground to clamber up on to gain the same net effect. You could take the view that political goals just happen to coincide with women's rights on this issue, or take a more cynical view that the women's rights argument is simply being used to achieve those goals.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

gaynorvader wrote: »

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

Here's a peer reviewed paper from the University of Gent which interviews 27 Belgian women who wore the burka, and discusses their rationale behind doing so. Having read it, I think your above opinion is quite wrong, in the context of Belgium at least. A study from France also paints much the same picture, which would lead me to believe the same is true of France.

tbh, I've only just read these myself, being at a loss as to why strongly stated opinion held here run so contrary to that of mainstream human rights organisations.

Piliger

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

smacl wrote: »

Here's a peer reviewed paper from the University of Gent which interviews 27 Belgian women who wore the burka, and discusses their rationale behind doing so. Having read it, I think your above opinion is quite wrong, in the context of Belgium at least. A study from France also paints much the same picture, which would lead me to believe the same is true of France.

tbh, I've only just read these myself, being at a loss as to why strongly stated opinion held here run so contrary to that of mainstream human rights organisations.

What a load of absolute tosh. These 'studies' are not worth the paper they are printed on except to show how deluded some people can be. No effort was made to ascertain what level of pressure or intimidation was being applied to these women. In fact the people carrying out this study are clearly clueless about the very existence of such pressure.
These women were clearly coming to these interviews well coached and well controlled by their families.

Gbear

I'm religious and 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.

I don't give a **** about tolerance. I care about personal freedoms.

Who decides what's insulting enough to be banned?
In fact, why should something be banned just because it "insults" people?

Something being insulting should have absolutely no legal bearing.
That's the kind of nonsense responsible for blasphemy legislation.

sparkling sea wrote: »

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.

Again, this is just wishy washy nonsense.
We're not talking about likes and dislikes here. We're talking about what should be enshrined in law. It isn't good enough to argue against something vague like "the normalisation of misogyny".
What does that actually mean? Why should we expect the law to interfere in something like that?

sparkling sea wrote: »

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

I'm struggling to find any actual arguments in your post. It's a load of passionate waffle about freedom this and gender equality that.
There's no basis presented for law here. It's just a pile of well-intentioned bull****.

kylith

Probably get flamed for being flippant, but this thread always makes me think of this Demotivational poster.

gaynorvader

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

smacl wrote: »

Here's a peer reviewed paper from the University of Gent which interviews 27 Belgian women who wore the burka, and discusses their rationale behind doing so. Having read it, I think your above opinion is quite wrong, in the context of Belgium at least. A study from France also paints much the same picture, which would lead me to believe the same is true of France.

tbh, I've only just read these myself, being at a loss as to why strongly stated opinion held here run so contrary to that of mainstream human rights organisations.

I haven't had a chance to read too in-depth, so correct me if I'm wrong, but these women state that they wear the veil to be more pious. That is not evidence of free decisions, there are religious influences and societal pressures present. These women are trying to be "good Muslims" and so are wearing the veil, they are not choosing to wear the veil, they are choosing to follow what they perceive to be Islamic law and are wearing the veil as a byproduct of that. I still maintain that no woman has made an unencumbered, free decision to wear a burka.

As I said, I have not read the articles in-depth and these are just first impressions, I'll get back later after I've had a chance to read more.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Piliger wrote: »

What a load of absolute tosh. These 'studies' are not worth the paper they are printed on except to show how deluded some people can be. No effort was made to ascertain what level of pressure or intimidation was being applied to these women. In fact the people carrying out this study are clearly clueless about the very existence of such pressure.
These women were clearly coming to these interviews well coached and well controlled by their families.

That being the case, you'll have no problem providing credible references to support your own assertions. Specifically, that all Belgian muslim women who wear burqas do so against their will, and that the linked document of Eva Brems' does not stand up to scrutiny as she and her colleagues are clueless about the fact that people behave differently when put under pressure.

(Let me guess, this post is also offensive)

Banbh

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

I don't have access to surveys on both sides of the argument but I suspect that the people and governments of Belgium, France and south Switzerland did. When the time comes in Ireland for similar laws to be introduced, I'll certainly look at those studies.

For a true scientific examination of the case we would need to be able to interview Burka-wearing women in a non-threatening environment (that is free to speak unknown to the their controllers). We would need also the opinions of women who have been able to divest themselves of the mask, and these are now available and obviously these women are opposed to the burka.

(I recall when I was involved in the introduction of equal pay for women in Ireland and maternity leave, not so long ago, that there were women who opposed these on the grounds that they would upset the status quo and change the special status afforded to women in society. It is not unusual in my opinion for the dominated to be comfortable with their inferior status.)

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

gaynorvader wrote: »

I haven't had a chance to read too in-depth, so correct me if I'm wrong, but these women state that they wear the veil to be more pious. That is not evidence of free decisions, there are religious influences and societal pressures present. These women are trying to be "good Muslims" and so are wearing the veil, they are not choosing to wear the veil, they are choosing to follow what they perceive to be Islamic law and are wearing the veil as a byproduct of that. I still maintain that no woman has made an unencumbered, free decision to wear a burka.

As I said, I have not read the articles in-depth and these are just first impressions, I'll get back later after I've had a chance to read more.

To be fair I've only read the first one and skimmed the second one. The content of the first seems reasonable, and there is no doubt whatsoever that religious and social indoctrination play a part, but it still appears that free will is in action. Probably worth noting that with several of the women, their husbands initially opposed them wearing the burqa, largely for practical reasons.

In some cases, the reason behind his attitude appears to be that he is worried about the hardship life with a face veil would cause to his wife, in others the reason seems to be related to his own interests: in one case a woman who had abandoned the veil wanted to wear it again, but did not do so because her Algerian husband feared that he would be considered a terrorist if his wife wore a face veil.

I think if the issue was really so clear cut, that human rights organisations and activists would not get it so wrong. Off topic, but on the subject of symbolism through religious indoctrination, I rather enjoyed the comparison to the crucifix in opendemocracy.org.

This may seem counterintuitive to many of us, but – as pointed out by the German philosopher Andrea Roedig – by the same token that the full-veil can be interpreted (and prohibited) as a symbol of oppression, the crucifix could, viewed by an uninformed outsider, be taken as a sign of veneration of torture and inhumane treatment.

Banbh

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

I'm a human rights activist and I get it right - ban this cruel and humiliating branding of women.

gaynorvader

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

smacl wrote: »

To be fair I've only read the first one and skimmed the second one. The content of the first seems reasonable, and there is no doubt whatsoever that religious and social indoctrination play a part, but it still appears that free will is in action. Probably worth noting that with several of the women, their husbands initially opposed them wearing the burqa, largely for practical reasons. {...}

This is the crux of the disagreement between us I believe. In my view, indoctrination of any kind precludes any free choices being made on any matter related to the subject of the indoctrination.
One would obviously still have free will, but the indoctrination would prevent them being able to exercise it in relation to the subjects of their indoctrination. The thought of being able to be pious without the burka would just seem wrong, even though they couldn't tell you why.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

I don't have access to surveys on both sides of the argument but I suspect that the people and governments of Belgium, France and south Switzerland did. When the time comes in Ireland for similar laws to be introduced, I'll certainly look at those studies.

For a true scientific examination of the case we would need to be able to interview Burka-wearing women in a non-threatening environment (that is free to speak unknown to the their controllers). We would need also the opinions of women who have been able to divest themselves of the mask, and these are now available and obviously these women are opposed to the burka.

(I recall when I was involved in the introduction of equal pay for women in Ireland and maternity leave, not so long ago, that there were women who opposed these on the grounds that they would upset the status quo and change the special status afforded to women in society. It is not unusual in my opinion for the dominated to be comfortable with their inferior status.)

From what I can see, there are strong arguments on both sides, particularly in France. As I previously posted Fadala Amara's article for the pro-ban side is also pretty compelling. As I've said, I think this issue is far from clear cut.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

gaynorvader wrote: »

This is the crux of the disagreement between us I believe. In my view, indoctrination of any kind precludes any free choices being made on any matter related to the subject of the indoctrination.

Yet people reject values indoctrinated into them all the time, and to varying degrees. How many atheists on this forum were raised catholic? How many had catholicism battered into them by nuns or brothers? No doubt it plays a role in all of this, but people take all sorts of actions knowingly and of their own choice that are bad for them for many different reasons. It don't think sufficient evidence exists to talk about the reason why all women who wear the burqa do so, or to dismiss all those who claim to do it of their own free will as victims of indoctrination. As per Roedig's point, the reasoning may well seem counter intuitive to us.

gaynorvader

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

smacl wrote: »

Yet people reject values indoctrinated into them all the time, and to varying degrees. How many atheists on this forum were raised catholic? How many had catholicism battered into them by nuns or brothers? No doubt it plays a role in all of this, but people take all sorts of actions knowingly and of their own choice that are bad for them for many different reasons. It don't think sufficient evidence exists to talk about the reason why all women who wear the burqa do so, or to dismiss all those who claim to do it of their own free will as victims of indoctrination. As per Roedig's point, the reasoning may well seem counter intuitive to us.

Not everyone can free themselves from indoctrination. Your argument (and again, please correct me if I misrepresent you here) seems to be "Perhaps some indoctrinated women would have chosen to wear burqas even without the indoctrination.". To this I say, show me some women, free from indoctrination, who have chosen to do this. We're all indoctrinated to some degree, some we get past, some we don't. We're indoctrinated to believe that stealing is wrong for instance. Don't get me wrong, it is, but I'd bet most if not all people knew this long before they could justify it.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

gaynorvader wrote: »

{...} show me some women, free from indoctrination, who have chosen to do this {...}

From my reading of the Ghent paper, the stated reasons for wearing the burqa were varied, some for religious (doctrinaire) reasons such as symbolising piety or chastity, some because they think it beautiful (??), and one a blue eyed Belgian muslim convert who didn't want to look out of place in the Arab-Muslim neighborhoods.

Whether they're free from indoctrination is dubious, but then as an atheist, I would consider most people with strongly held anachronistic religious beliefs and values to be indoctrinated. Unfortunately, my denial of their beliefs they could equally well ascribe to indoctrination on the part of my parents.