Burka ban

sparkling sea

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

Gbear wrote: »

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.



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?



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****.

There is no basis for law as you see it.
"The normalisation of misogyny" is not vague, the wealth of equality legislation overturning misogonistic assumptions a is not vague and is ever growing.

I fully understand that as you say "I don't give a **** about tolerance. I care about personal freedoms".Maybe you might up date yourself with pulic policy issues and the law.

In fairness if you are finding my arugments to be well intentioned waffle just ignore them, I really won't mind. Its a discusion I don't take it personally but I appreciate it if you could stop yourself from getting personal.

Mark Hamill

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

smacl wrote: »

Tthere is no doubt whatsoever that religious and social indoctrination play a part, but it still appears that free will is in action.

If free will is in action, then why is it never in action by itself? Its only muslim women (and a very small minority of muslim women) who wear it, and they do so for religious reasons. Even without a husband directing them, they may have other relatives or religious leaders telling them they should wear the burka, and no doubt they will tell their kids the same.

smacl wrote: »

Off topic, but on the subject of symbolism through religious indoctrination, I rather enjoyed the comparison to the crucifix in opendemocracy.org.

Its nothing like the crucifix. The crucifix is a memento of a (supposedly) historical act, not a view on the position of women in society.

Mark Hamill

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.

Its harder to reject indoctrination when that indoctrination includes severe punishment (death, imprisonment, banishment) for rejecting it.

Mark Hamill

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

smacl wrote: »

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.

But you can see what they all have in common, what makes them invalid responses to gaynorvadors question: they are all muslim. Its the extreme interpretation that underlines the indoctrination which drives them to wear (and maybe accept) the burka. You need to show someone who wears the burka free of all the religious indoctrination associated with it.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But you can see what they all have in common, what makes them invalid responses to gaynorvadors question: they are all muslim. Its the extreme interpretation that underlines the indoctrination which drives them to wear (and maybe accept) the burka. You need to show someone who wears the burka free of all the religious indoctrination associated with it.

My opinion, and it is just opinion, that a significant number of women in Belgium and France wear the burqa out of the own free will, has been arrived at by reading the supporting evidence on either side of the argument, and coming to a conclusion on that basis. There appear to be well reasoned arguments on both sides, but the position I've arrived at is based on balance of probability, and the weight of evidence from the limited material that I've read.

Yes, only Muslim women wear burqas, as the burqa is a piece of clothing from Muslim religious tradition. That they do so in Belgium and France entirely because of coercion and / or religious indoctrination does not appear the case from the material I've read. If you can offer stronger evidence to the contrary, which is specifically relevant to the context of this argument, I'll revise my opinion. That to many people, the burqa symbolises gender inequality and associated abuses does not alter the above any way. Again, from what I've read, this symbolism is well understood but not shared by the women in question. That Islamic tradition directly contradicts the evolved European position on gender equality is also not being questioned, nor the numerous human rights violations that take place in many Islamic regimes.

sparkling sea

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

smacl wrote: »

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 said, I think this issue is far from clear cut.

Balancing rights is difficult enough, add to it religious mumbo jumbo and all logic goes out the window.

No matter what is decided some group will feel aggreived; thats why its best that we have to go back to the most basic aspiration of any doemocracy when deciding on laws and public policy - the wishes of the majority with due regard to the rights of minority.

Whether people like it or not almost all polls indicate that the majority of people in Western societies want a burqa ban, there are majority Muslim states where the ban is hoped for.
So how do we show due regard for the rights of the minority - perhaps as was suggested by clairefontaine the ban should be limited to certain institutions.

For me the most important factors would be resocurces that help to empower people, but funds are highly unlikely to be spent here.

Mark Hamill

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

smacl wrote: »

My opinion, and it is just opinion, that a significant number of women in Belgium and France wear the burqa out of the own free will, has been arrived at by reading the supporting evidence on either side of the argument, and coming to a conclusion on that basis. There appear to be well reasoned arguments on both sides, but the position I've arrived at is based on balance of probability, and the weight of evidence from the limited material that I've read.

Why did you need 6 sentences to say "I agree with my own opinion"?

smacl wrote: »

Yes, only Muslim women wear burqas, as the burqa is a piece of clothing from Muslim religious tradition. That they do so in Belgium and France entirely because of coercion and / or religious indoctrination does not appear the case from the material I've read.

Except your material explicitly shows that they do wear it because of coercion and religious indoctrination, you say it here yourself "only Muslims women wear burqas". If the single thing dividing burqa wearers and non burqa wearers is extreme interpretation of religious obligation (almost always Islam), then how is that not the entire driving force? Other people, of many different religions, all aspire to modesty, piousness or closeness to god (some of the justifications made up for the burka) without the burka. The religious indoctrination behind the burka is the single difference.

If the point you are trying to make is that you don't see the coercion and indoctrination as sufficient to warrant acting against it, what would be sufficient coercion and indoctrination to warrant being acted against?

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why did you need 6 sentences to say "I agree with my own opinion"?

Ah c'mon now, give me a break, you could at least count the number of sentences in a paragraph without gross exaggeration. Hint. Two

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

sparkling sea wrote: »

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.

sparkling sea wrote: »

No matter what is decided some group will feel aggreived; thats why its best that we have to go back to the most basic aspiration of any doemocracy when deciding on laws and public policy - the wishes of the majority with due regard to the rights of minority.

These statements seem to be in opposition. You start by saying its all about basic human rights, that the democratic process can be flawed in this regard, and use Hitler of all people to illustrate this. You then say though it may leave some people feeling aggrieved, the democratic process is the way to go. Which?

Banbh

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

Just thought this paragraph of a report on the closing of a Muslim school in Britain might be interesting to readers of this thread.

The BBC reported that unnamed former staff members of Al-Madinah, which opened as a free school in September last year, had alleged that girls were forced to sit at the back of the classroom, and that female staff members, including non-Muslims, had been forced to wear the hijab.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/oct/02/muslim-faith-school-closes-on-first-day-of-ofsted-inspection?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2&et_cid=51207&et_rid=7924640&Linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.theguardian.com%2feducation%2f2013%2foct%2f02%2fmuslim-faith-school-closes-on-first-day-of-ofsted-inspection

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Your material explicitly shows that they do wear it because of coercion and religious indoctrination, you say it here yourself "only Muslims women wear burqas". If the single thing dividing burqa wearers and non burqa wearers is extreme interpretation of religious obligation (almost always Islam), then how is that not the entire driving force? Other people, of many different religions, all aspire to modesty, piousness or closeness to god (some of the justifications made up for the burka) without the burka. The religious indoctrination behind the burka is the single difference.

As I've repeated, the conclusion I draw from the papers I've linked is that there is a significant element of free will involved in burqa wearing in case studies carried out. This is also the conclusion drawn by the authors, and the stance adopted by human rights organisations. Again, as already stated, I've used it to form what I consider a reasonably balanced opinion. You are stating this is wrong, while you are right, yet you don't back up your stance with any supporting material. As such, I'd consider your statements as unsupported opinion.

If the point you are trying to make is that you don't see the coercion and indoctrination as sufficient to warrant acting against it, what would be sufficient coercion and indoctrination to warrant being acted against?

To act against what exactly? I've already stated that I favour banning the burqa.

gaynorvader

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

smacl wrote: »

As I've repeated, the conclusion I draw from the papers I've linked is that there is a significant element of free will involved in burqa wearing in case studies carried out. This is also the conclusion drawn by the authors, and the stance adopted by human rights organisations. Again, as already stated, I've used it to form what I consider a reasonably balanced opinion. You are stating this is wrong, while you are right, yet you don't back up your stance with any supporting material. As such, I'd consider your statements as unsupported opinion.



To act against what exactly? I've already stated that I favour banning the burqa.

Asking an indoctrinated person whether they're indoctrinated is, frankly, nuts. Of course they're going to say it was a free choice and list the rationalisations they've made, if they just said "I wear the veil because I'm indoctrinated.", then the indoctrination wouldn't have worked!

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

gaynorvader wrote: »

Asking an indoctrinated person whether they're indoctrinated is, frankly, nuts. Of course they're going to say it was a free choice and list the rationalisations they've made, if they just said "I wear the veil because I'm indoctrinated.", then the indoctrination wouldn't have worked!

True, but you still have to illustrate that they're indoctrinated. Saying that they're indoctrinated because they wear veil and at the same time they wear the veil because they're indoctrinated is a clear tautology.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

Just thought this paragraph of a report on the closing of a Muslim school in Britain might be interesting to readers of this thread.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/oct/02/muslim-faith-school-closes-on-first-day-of-ofsted-inspection?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2&et_cid=51207&et_rid=7924640&Linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.theguardian.com%2feducation%2f2013%2foct%2f02%2fmuslim-faith-school-closes-on-first-day-of-ofsted-inspection

It really shows that repressive religious behaviour needs to be addressed in a far broader manner than just clothing laws. Another strong case for secular education to be mandatory.

gaynorvader

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

smacl wrote: »

True, but you still have to illustrate that they're indoctrinated. Saying that they're indoctrinated because they wear veil and at the same time they wear the veil because they're indoctrinated is a clear tautology.

The fact they believe in a religion is strong evidence to me to be honest. But I accept that it might not be to everyone. In which case I don't know how to show such a thing in some strangers I have no access to.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

gaynorvader wrote: »

The fact they believe in a religion is strong evidence to me to be honest. But I accept that it might not be to everyone. In which case I don't know how to show such a thing in some strangers I have no access to.

It's a difficult one. As an atheist I assume all religious people are indoctrinated to some degree, because believing in a god from my point of view is irrational and requires the idea to be planted and reinforced. It's not a particularly religiously tolerant viewpoint, but there you go, you are what you is and all that. How this indoctrination affects people's behaviour is, as you say, not easy to ascertain. I tend to think it varies significantly from person to person, and hence would suspect the same variance among burqa wearers.

Mark Hamill

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

smacl wrote: »

Ah c'mon now, give me a break, you could at least count the number of sentences in a paragraph without gross exaggeration. Hint. Two

Sentences... lines... whats the difference

Mark Hamill

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

smacl wrote: »

As I've repeated, the conclusion I draw from the papers I've linked is that there is a significant element of free will involved in burqa wearing in case studies carried out. This is also the conclusion drawn by the authors, and the stance adopted by human rights organisations. Again, as already stated, I've used it to form what I consider a reasonably balanced opinion. You are stating this is wrong, while you are right, yet you don't back up your stance with any supporting material. As such, I'd consider your statements as unsupported opinion.

I don't need to present my own material, when yours makes my argument for me. If there is significant free will involved in burqa wearing, why is every single woman in all of your studies a muslim (and a very specific kind of muslim at that) before wearing the burka? Because it is only with the extreme pressure of that very specific interpretation of islam that the burka is worn. If significant free will was involved in wearing the burka, people outside of very extreme religious interpretations would wear it. None of your referenced authors or human rights organisations explain this contradiction.

smacl wrote: »

To act against what exactly? I've already stated that I favour banning the burqa.

So you believe the choice to wear the burka is free, but still favour banning it?

Mark Hamill

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

smacl wrote: »

True, but you still have to illustrate that they're indoctrinated. Saying that they're indoctrinated because they wear veil and at the same time they wear the veil because they're indoctrinated is a clear tautology.

Hence the argument on this thread has always been you only get the veil with the indoctrination, a linear causal argument. Be nice if this could be the argument you address for once.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you believe the choice to wear the burka is free, but still favour banning it?

Yep. That it is offensive to a large enough number of people that it becomes a probable source of civil unrest is reason enough for me. Given that many people consider it a strong symbol of gender inequality is clearly another. That no small amount of people are simply freaked out by the sight of a woman in a burqa is an unfortunate third. I don't buy the whole security thing myself, but others might cite that as a fourth.

So the question then becomes, while banning the burqa interferes with the civil liberties of some citizens, is it still necessary for the greater good of society. I believe it is, and would have no qualms on banning it on that basis. I think the people affected by the ban should be consulted as part of this process, and let know the honest reasons why this action is considered necessary. More importantly, and as per my reply to Banbh's earlier post, any ban would need to be accompanied with a broader action outlining the strict limits of freedom of religious expression where it conflicts with other more fundamentally held basic rights such as gender equality.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't need to present my own material, when yours makes my argument for me. If there is significant free will involved in burqa wearing, why is every single woman in all of your studies a muslim (and a very specific kind of muslim at that) before wearing the burka? Because it is only with the extreme pressure of that very specific interpretation of islam that the burka is worn. If significant free will was involved in wearing the burka, people outside of very extreme religious interpretations would wear it. None of your referenced authors or human rights organisations explain this contradiction.

If you feel you're drawing on the material presented, perhaps you could give some references from it that support your point. If you feel that those references don't exist in that material, it doesn't actually support your argument at all, in which case remains unsupported.

The specific supporting material you need is something that backs up the highlighted line where you assert causation. The material I linked goes as far as interviewing a significant sample of the women in question, in an anonymous manner, and a safe environment. During the course of these interviews the interviewees state that they act out of free will, and the interviewers make no notes to suggest the contrary. This forms part of a peer reviewed study led by a female professor of human rights. So for your assertion to be true either the study is a fake, or the people carrying out the study are incompetent. I don't believe either to be the case, and IMHO you really need some additional external source to verify or at least support your assertion.

Mark Hamill

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

smacl wrote: »

If you feel you're drawing on the material presented, perhaps you could give some references from it that support your point. If you feel that those references don't exist in that material, it doesn't actually support your argument at all, in which case remains unsupported.

The specific supporting material you need is something that backs up the highlighted line where you assert causation. The material I linked goes as far as interviewing a significant sample of the women in question, in an anonymous manner, and a safe environment. During the course of these interviews the interviewees state that they act out of free will, and the interviewers make no notes to suggest the contrary. This forms part of a peer reviewed study led by a female professor of human rights. So for your assertion to be true either the study is a fake, or the people carrying out the study are incompetent. I don't believe either to be the case, and IMHO you really need some additional external source to verify or at least support your assertion.

1. Every single woman interviewed as part of the studies is a muslim, either raised so or adult convert.
2. The adult converts never wore the burka before converting.
3. Only a very small percentage of muslims (in Europe anyway) wear the burka.

These 3 details all come from your studies (I think they can even just be found throughout the introduction sections). Together, these details mean that the burka is an item of clothing inherently tied to very specific religious indoctrination (only muslims wear it, and only very small, specific groups of muslims at that).

Some notes on your studies, btw:
Neither Brems study nor the French one are peer reviewed in independent publications. The French study is a self published document by the Open Society Foundation, while Brems is published by her university.
Neither study is qualitative, they are quantitative. Each study poses questions to interviewees and records answers as they given, only given overall interpretation as to trends. No answers are questioned, everything is taken at face value.
The studies do a good job of accumulating the various proclaimed reason for wearing the burka, but cannot be used to make any claims that those reasons are unencumbered by excessive coercion or indoctrination. If religious indoctrination could not survive a couple of un-chaperoned (but passive) interviews then religions would not last the hundreds and thousands of years they have.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

1. Every single woman interviewed as part of the studies is a muslim, either raised so or adult convert.
2. The adult converts never wore the burka before converting.
3. Only a very small percentage of muslims (in Europe anyway) wear the burka.

These 3 details all come from your studies (I think they can even just be found throughout the introduction sections). Together, these details mean that the burka is an item of clothing inherently tied to very specific religious indoctrination (only muslims wear it, and only very small, specific groups of muslims at that).

Yet in the study we read

Wearing the Face Veil in Belgium wrote:

All interviewees describe the decision to start wearing the face veil as a well-considered and free decision. They consider it a crucial matter that the wearing of a face veil should be an autonomous personal choice. Several emphasize that from a religious perspective, this has to be an autonomous decision, as Islam explicitly prohibits pressure in religious matters.

So your assertion is that not one of these twenty seven women know their own minds. Because they're Muslims, they've suffered such deep levels of indoctrination, that whenever they think they're speaking of their own free will, they're actually just regurgitating what they've been brainwashed with. But even if you believed that it still doesn't hold water, as shown by the excerpt below;

For some women this is more a ‘practical’ matter of avoiding unwelcome male attention, which they say to experience from Muslim men in the public space if they go around uncovered. I have put it on to have peace, being Belgian, having blue eyes etcetera, it was a bit difficult for me, […] automatically when I went in the Arab-Muslim neighborhoods of the capital, I got comments by men: ‘ ‘are you a Muslima, are you a Muslima…’ Second question was: ‘are you married?’ and that disturbed me already a little.

While it highlights the nastiness associated with gender inequality, it hardly shows any evidence of indoctrination.

I actually think the reason these women wear burqas is best described as zeal, which also has its religious connotations.

MrPudding

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

Banbh wrote: »

Just thought this paragraph of a report on the closing of a Muslim school in Britain might be interesting to readers of this thread.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/oct/02/muslim-faith-school-closes-on-first-day-of-ofsted-inspection?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2&et_cid=51207&et_rid=7924640&Linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.theguardian.com%2feducation%2f2013%2foct%2f02%2fmuslim-faith-school-closes-on-first-day-of-ofsted-inspection

The NSS have been looking at this school too.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/09/more-revelations-about-the-derby-muslim-free-school

MrP

sparkling sea

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

smacl wrote: »

These statements seem to be in opposition. You start by saying its all about basic human rights, that the democratic process can be flawed in this regard, and use Hitler of all people to illustrate this. You then say though it may leave some people feeling aggrieved, the democratic process is the way to go. Which?

Its not an either or.

Mark Hamill

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

smacl wrote: »

Yet in the study we read

So your assertion is that not one of these twenty seven women know their own minds. Because they're Muslims, they've suffered such deep levels of indoctrination, that whenever they think they're speaking of their own free will, they're actually just regurgitating what they've been brainwashed with.

Yes, that's how brainwashing works. Like I said: "If religious indoctrination could not survive a couple of un-chaperoned (but passive) interviews then religions would not last the hundreds and thousands of years they have."

smacl wrote: »

But even if you believed that it still doesn't hold water, as shown by the excerpt below;

While it highlights the nastiness associated with gender inequality, it hardly shows any evidence of indoctrination.

It does, it shows that the men involved are indoctrinated to treat a woman that makes her uncomfortable and the woman is indoctrinated to think that it is appropriate treatment because she isn't wearing a burka. It's like the women who wear the burka in the Middle Eastern countries where it's compulsory, because if they don't they will be punished. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
And that's without questioning why she couldn't just wear a regular headscarf or go to the local imam and ask him to tell his congregation not to treat women like they wear.

Are you going to respond to anything else in my post, any of my comments about your sources? It's going to be hard for us to continue a conversation referring to the studies if we both have very different views of their validity.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It does, it shows that the men involved are indoctrinated to treat a woman that makes her uncomfortable and the woman is indoctrinated to think that it is appropriate treatment because she isn't wearing a burka. It's like the women who wear the burka in the Middle Eastern countries where it's compulsory, because if they don't they will be punished. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
And that's without questioning why she couldn't just wear a regular headscarf or go to the local imam and ask him to tell his congregation not to treat women like they wear.

Are you going to respond to anything else in my post, any of my comments about your sources? It's going to be hard for us to continue a conversation referring to the studies if we both have very different views of their validity.

Nope. Nothing else to add. I'll leave you with your prophecies, indoctrination and firmly held beliefs. My opinions remain the same, such as they are.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

sparkling sea wrote: »

Its not an either or.

Quite right, which is why I'm at a loss as to why you dragged herr Führer into this debate. Seems bizarre in this context.

Banbh

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

Interesting report on Newstalk this morning on the Islamist factions fighting Assad in Syria.
In the territories they occupy, they are making women wear burkas and not talk to men who are not relatives.

The question needs to be asked in the European debate; are women who wear the burka also forbidden to talk to men?

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

Interesting report on Newstalk this morning on the Islamist factions fighting Assad in Syria.
In the territories they occupy, they are making women wear burkas and not talk to men who are not relatives.

The question needs to be asked in the European debate; are women who wear the burka also forbidden to talk to men?

Which in turn begs the question are women who wear the burqa in Europe being denied other basic human rights, or being subject to other forms of systematic abuse? If so, are other Muslim women who don't wear burqas, or other women from other religious or ethnic minorities, suffering similar issues? If it seems to be primarily burqa wearers, does banning the burqa solve the larger underlying problem, or simply hide it from the public view?

My feeling is that the burqa is simply an indicator of a far larger underlying problem, and while banning the burqa buries this issue from public view, it does little to resolve it. Are European governments and their citizens more interested in hiding problems than solving them, as has so obviously been the case with the Irish Government and the Catholic church in recent decades?

I don't have any answers to the above, but cynically and somewhat sadly suspect that the historic Irish approach is typical enough.