Burka ban

jfmeto

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

I am going to wear my Iron Man helmet all this week, oh wait I can't.
Guess It will be the bin liner so!

Brown Bomber

Piliger wrote: »

Yes. We are entitled to free all women from the tyranny of anyone forcing them to erase their identity. Yes. We are entitled.

Don't include me in you fascist fantasies. I am against singling out minorities for unique punishments.

So which items of clothing of the cultural white woman's wardrobe are you equally foaming at the mouth over?

And if what you said here is true:

We are entitled to free all women from the tyranny of anyone forcing them to erase their identity.

How do I go about stopping YOU so?

Somehow, and I can't quite figure out how, you can't understand that this is exactly what YOU are doing...weird...

Have you a got a mirror? You should take a long, hard look into it.

Banbh

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

Masks are sometimes used to punish the wearer either by signalling their humiliation or causing direct suffering:
A "shameful" mask (Schandmaske in German) is devised for public humiliation; a popular reduced form are donkey ears for a bad pupil or student
Particularly uncomfortable types, such as an iron mask, for example the Scold's bridle, are fit as devices for torture or corporal punishment
Masks were used to alienate and silence prisoners in Australian jails in the late 19th century. They were made of white cloth and covered the face, leaving only the eyes visible.
Use of masks is also common in BDSM practices.

I call face coverings 'masks' and others, to hide their purpose, call them 'clothing'. And their purpose is to hide the person from society and prevent social interaction, for the purpose of control. The Muslim mask is exclusively worn by women who are treated as inferiors by that creed. This is not coincidence but design.

Brown Bomber

Banbh wrote: »

I call face coverings 'masks' and others, to hide their purpose, call them 'clothing'. And their purpose is to hide the person from society and prevent social interaction, for the purpose of control. The Muslim mask is exclusively worn by women who are treated as inferiors by that creed. This is not coincidence but design.

Random person on the internet definition vs the Oxford Dictionary defintion. :pac:

I am afraid you lose.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Piliger wrote: »

Yes. We are entitled to free all women from the tyranny of anyone forcing them to erase their identity.

I think at best we are entitled to control, via democratic process, what is and is not acceptable in our own society. Most women who wear face masks for religious reasons (by coercion or choice) are not part of our society, and we negligible influence of their treatment or behavior.

My opinion is that burka bans in Europe are as much about removing a visible source of offence to societies sensibilities as the emancipation of Muslim women. As has been repeated in this thread, there are many perfectly good reasons why the burka should be banned in our society, and I think the majority are quite happy to rally behind these reasons. Personally, I have no problem stating that I'm against the spread and growth of any fundamental religion in our society. We're in the process of getting over of a very nasty dose of hard line Catholicism in this country, and the last thing we need is expressions of public zeal from elsewhere. I don't really believe women in burqas represent a security risk, nor do I believe that in Irish society they are more likely to suffer abuse at the hands of their husbands than good Catholic women. I think in a more evolved society people should be able wear what they want, but I don't think we're quite there yet.

Banbh

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

Random person on the internet definition vs the Oxford Dictionary defintion.
I am afraid you lose.

A mask is a face covering and this is obviously a childish game to you.

gaynorvader

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

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Don't include me in you fascist fantasies. I am against singling out minorities for unique punishments.

So which items of clothing of the cultural white woman's wardrobe are you equally foaming at the mouth over?

And if what you said here is true:


How do I go about stopping YOU so?

Somehow, and I can't quite figure out how, you can't understand that this is exactly what YOU are doing...weird...

Have you a got a mirror? You should take a long, hard look into it.

What's wrong is that women are being forced to wear these coverings. That if they wear them, their individuality is stripped away. That it can be used to cover up any beatings they might receive at the hands of their husband, boyfriend, etc.
I don't know if state intervention is the right way to go, but there needs to be some movement to remove this sexist practice from our society.

Mark Hamill

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

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am against singling out minorities for unique punishments.

So you are against the burka then?

Brown Bomber

Banbh wrote: »

A mask is a face covering and this is obviously a childish game to you.

No game. The Burqa is an item of clothing. Deal with it. Then try and come to terms with the cognitive dissonance that you hold the anti-feminist position of demanding that the state intervenes when another woman wears an item of clothing you don't approve of.

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you are against the burka then?

I am neither for or against any item of womens clothing. People should be free to wear whatever they want, right?

What I am against is any nfringements on an individuals rights to dress themselves as they see fit

Banbh

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

Nothing at all to do with clothing.

I oppose the subjugation of women through face-masks, house arrest and isolation from society as practised by Islam.

Face up to the consequences of your position and the evil it seeks to obscure.

Brown Bomber

smacl wrote: »

I think at best we are entitled to control, via democratic process, what is and is not acceptable in our own society. Most women who wear face masks for religious reasons (by coercion or choice) are not part of our society, and we negligible influence of their treatment or behavior.

My opinion is that burka bans in Europe are as much about removing a visible source of offence to societies sensibilities as the emancipation of Muslim women. As has been repeated in this thread, there are many perfectly good reasons why the burka should be banned in our society, and I think the majority are quite happy to rally behind these reasons. Personally, I have no problem stating that I'm against the spread and growth of any fundamental religion in our society. We're in the process of getting over of a very nasty dose of hard line Catholicism in this country, and the last thing we need is expressions of public zeal from elsewhere. I don't really believe women in burqas represent a security risk, nor do I believe that in Irish society they are more likely to suffer abuse at the hands of their husbands than good Catholic women. I think in a more evolved society people should be able wear what they want, but I don't think we're quite there yet.

So mob rule, **** the minorites and take the road of oppression to get to your utopia. Don't see this working out so well.

gaynorvader

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

Brown Bomber wrote: »

{...} People should be free to wear whatever they want, right?

What I am against is any infringements on an individual's rights to dress themselves as they see fit

This is exactly the issue at hand. People wearing the burka are almost if not always forced into wearing it. Either through indoctrination, social pressure or under threats of physical violence.

Brown Bomber

gaynorvader wrote: »

What's wrong is that women are being forced to wear these coverings. That if they wear them, their individuality is stripped away. That it can be used to cover up any beatings they might receive at the hands of their husband, boyfriend, etc.
I don't know if state intervention is the right way to go, but there needs to be some movement to remove this sexist practice from our society.

How many women are "forced" to wear burqas in Ireland? How many of these burqa wearers are being beaten? Are Muslims in Ireland beating their spouses more than everyone else? Can you support this?

Brown Bomber

gaynorvader wrote: »

This is exactly the issue at hand. People wearing the burka are almost if not always forced into wearing it. Either through indoctrination, social pressure or under threats of physical violence.

Again, I'd like you to support your claims. I'd also point out that I stand against the extremists on both sides. The wahabbi who forces a woman in his orbit to wear a veil and the "liberals" who would force her not to.

What I am discussing is an item clothing which so-called progressives want to prevent a woman -- through fear of penalty -- from wearing when she chooses to wear it. That is without muddying the water with bigoted stereotypes of the frail submissive Muslim woman and the violent and bellicose Muslim man.

gaynorvader

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

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How many women are "forced" to wear burqas in Ireland? How many of these burqa wearers are being beaten? Are Muslims in Ireland beating their spouses more than everyone else? Can you support this?

In Ireland? Odd qualifier. I have no idea. I thought we were talking about Belgium and the world at large?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Again, I'd like you to support your claims. I'd also point out that I stand against the extremists on both sides. The wahabbi who forces a woman in his orbit to wear a veil and the "liberals" who would force her not to.

What I am discussing is an item clothing which so-called progressives want to prevent a woman -- through fear of penalty -- from wearing when she chooses to wear it. That is without muddying the water with bigoted stereotypes of the frail submissive Muslim woman and the violent and bellicose Muslim man.

So you disagree that the burka is used as a tool of oppression?

Penn

I'm religious and support the ban

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Again, I'd like you to support your claims. I'd also point out that I stand against the extremists on both sides. The wahabbi who forces a woman in his orbit to wear a veil and the "liberals" who would force her not to.

What I am discussing is an item clothing which so-called progressives want to prevent a woman -- through fear of penalty -- from wearing when she chooses to wear it. That is without muddying the water with bigoted stereotypes of the frail submissive Muslim woman and the violent and bellicose Muslim man.

You're again ignoring the simple fact that religion is a huge part of Muslim women "choosing" to wear it.

Non-Muslim women in non-Muslim countries pretty much never, ever choose to wear them.
It is only Muslim women who wear them.

Even in a blog piece you linked to a while back which had a Muslim woman saying why she chooses to wear it, she noted religion as being the main reason (or at least as one of the most important reasons).

This is what people have an issue with. It's not "Muslim women shouldn't be allowed to wear burkas/niqabs", it's that the "choice" Muslim women are faced with isn't to wear one or not, it's to follow their religion or not. And not adhering to an important principle of their religion has substantial negative effects on their family and how they're treated within such communities. It's not a choice to wear a burka, it's something dictated by their religion and society. This is evident by the fact that no women whose choice isn't influenced by such factors wears a burka.

I agree, no-one should be muddying the waters by talking about the threat of physical violence for not wearing one, as that's simply not the case in all scenarios. However, to try an imply that it's simply the choice of these women to wear a burka is laughable. Religious, familial and societal reasons are much more prominent, to the extent that I'd consider any element of "choice" to be the result of indoctrination.

Again, if it was a completely free choice, why don't women who aren't part of such a religion choose to wear them?

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So mob rule, **** the minorites and take the road of oppression to get to your utopia. Don't see this working out so well.

Nope, just democratic process in action, which is more than happens in many Islamic regimes where sharia law is in force. Personal freedoms are regularly curbed where failing to do so would upset the majority, e.g. walking around naked is not acceptable. Being part of a civilized democratic society involves compromise.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Penn wrote: »

It's not "Muslim women shouldn't be allowed to wear burkas/niqabs", it's that the "choice" Muslim women are faced with isn't to wear one or not, it's to follow their religion or not.

Sorry, but not true. Most Muslim women in western society choose not to wear burqas, yet they remain Muslims. How much of this choice comes down to spousal / societal pressure is a different matter.

Penn

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Sorry, but not true. Most Muslim women in western society choose not to wear burqas, yet they remain Muslims. How much of this choice comes down to spousal / societal pressure is a different matter.

Sorry yes, fair point. Not all Muslim women wear burkas, just like not all burka-wearers are Muslim (as it's a part of some other religions too).

Religion, society and family reasons are the main reasons why women wear burkas; not because it's their own personal choice. I would just think the idea of spousal and societal pressure are a direct result of religious ideals, so religion is still the main factor.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Restricting peoples freedom to dress as they wish in order to protect their freedom to (what exactly?) seems pretty suspicious to me.
If, as is being asserted here, the burka is a visible sympton of oppression, why bother banning the symptom, instead of dealing with the cause, unless people want the problem out of sight so that it's out of mind?
Or is it that directly legislating to prevent a religion from oppressing women might be too much work, or open too many cans of worms?

Banning burkas doesn't solve any problems, it just makes some people feel like they've done something good without going to any effort.

Brown Bomber

smacl wrote: »

Nope, just democratic process in action, which is more than happens in many Islamic regimes where sharia law is in force. Personal freedoms are regularly curbed where failing to do so would upset the majority, e.g. walking around naked is not acceptable. Being part of a civilized democratic society involves compromise.

To clarify, you are in favour of the "tyranny of the majority"?

A Tyranny of the majority is when a majority through legislation treats a minority differently due to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin.

robindch

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

Absolam wrote: »

Banning burkas doesn't solve any problems, it just makes some people feel like they've done something good without going to any effort.

That argument has been addressed at length previously.

Short reply is that (a) restricting dress to one item is far, far more restrictive than restricting dress to anything but item, so the two are not equivalent; (b) banning the symbol is one tactic in a broader strategy which also includes education, empowerment, financial and support for other freedoms; (c) the burka is being banned for exactly the same reason that women are being forced, subtly or otherwise, to wear it -- because it's easily visible and signals submission, where it's used, and freedom where it's not; and (d) no, it's not a perfect tactic, but if you have any suggestions about how to allow the practice of authoritarian religion without incurring a reciprocal ability to oppress certain individuals, well, I'm all ears.

robindch

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

Brown Bomber wrote: »

To clarify, you are in favour of the "tyranny of the majority"?

The majority of Saudis appear to be quite happy to prevent me from having a beer in Riyadh, going to the flicks there or seeing anything of the nation's women as anything more human than thousands of self-propelled refuse sacks. And that's to say nothing of the Mutaween roaming the city's malls with sticks around prayer time, rounding up everybody into the mosques (except me, since I'm obviously a temporarily-immigrant honkey).

Seems pretty tyrannical to me, though I'm sure the islamic types who run the kindgom are doing nothing but implementing allah's divine will.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

The majority of Saudis appear to be quite happy to prevent me from having a beer in Riyadh, going to the flicks there or seeing anything of the nation's women as anything more human than thousands of self-propelled refuse sacks. And that's to say nothing of the Mutaween roaming the city's malls with sticks around prayer time, rounding up everybody into the mosques (except me, since I'm obviously a temporarily-immigrant honkey).

Seems pretty tyrannical to me, though I'm sure the islamic types who run the kindgom are doing nothing but implementing allah's divine will.

Strange role-models to have. Why do you wish to emulate them? Or is it simply a case of petty revenge?

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

That argument has been addressed at length previously.

Short reply is that (a) restricting dress to one item is far, far more restrictive than restricting dress to anything but item, so the two are not equivalent; (b) banning the symbol is one tactic in a broader strategy which also includes education, empowerment, financial and support for other freedoms; (c) the burka is being banned for exactly the same reason that women are being forced, subtly or otherwise, to wear it -- because it's easily visible and signals submission, where it's used, and freedom where it's not; and (d) no, it's not a perfect tactic, but if you have any suggestions about how to allow the practice of authoritarian religion without incurring a reciprocal ability to oppress certain individuals, well, I'm all ears.

Respectfully, it's not an argument, it's a rebuttal. The argument that doing something bad (like restricting someones freedom to choose their own clothes) is better than not doing something good (like establishing a well reasoned educational and empowerment strategy) doesn't wash. Doing something bad is never as good as doing something good.
I'm not saying I personally have a strategy to empower and free oppressed muslim women living in France/Belgium, I'm saying the Belgian/French government have a duty to come up with something better than just preventing people from seeing muslim women being submissive.

robindch

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

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Strange role-models to have. Why do you wish to emulate them? Or is it simply a case of petty revenge?

:cool:

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

Respectfully, it's not an argument, it's a rebuttal. The argument that doing something bad (like restricting someones freedom to choose their own clothes) is better than not doing something good (like establishing a well reasoned educational and empowerment strategy) doesn't wash. Doing something bad is never as good as doing something good.
I'm not saying I personally have a strategy to empower and free oppressed muslim women living in France, I'm saying the French government have a duty to come up with something better than just preventing people from seeing muslim women being submissive.

That presumes the French burka ban is there solely to protect the interests of Muslim women in France. I'm not convinced that that is the case. Cynical perhaps, but I don't believe that the majority French politicians could give a damn about the best interests of Muslim women.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

You're again ignoring the simple fact that religion is a huge part of Muslim women "choosing" to wear it.

I'm not ignoring it; it's irrelevant. People's personal reasons for choosing what clothes they put on their own bodies are exactly that - personal reasons.

What you are forgetting is that there is an actual person behind fully capable of making their own decisions,

While you might not share their beliefs and repect the legitimacy of a religious way of life you have no right to interfere in their personal choices provided they are not causing you any harm.

And aren't we all subject to various influences when it comes to our own personal clothing choices? Should we ban clothes adverts?

Penn wrote: »

Non-Muslim women in non-Muslim countries pretty much never, ever choose to wear them.
It is only Muslim women who wear them.

Again it's irrelevant. Only Christians wear cassocks. Should we ban them too?

Penn wrote: »

Even in a blog piece you linked to a while back which had a Muslim woman saying why she chooses to wear it, she noted religion as being the main reason (or at least as one of the most important reasons).

Again, her personal reasons have nothing to do with you. Likewise she has no power over what you can or cannot wear.

Penn wrote: »

This is what people have an issue with. It's not "Muslim women shouldn't be allowed to wear burkas/niqabs", it's that the "choice" Muslim women are faced with isn't to wear one or not, it's to follow their religion or not. And not adhering to an important principle of their religion has substantial negative effects on their family and how they're treated within such communities. It's not a choice to wear a burka, it's something dictated by their religion and society. This is evident by the fact that no women whose choice isn't influenced by such factors wears a burka.

I agree, no-one should be muddying the waters by talking about the threat of physical violence for not wearing one, as that's simply not the case in all scenarios. However, to try an imply that it's simply the choice of these women to wear a burka is laughable. Religious, familial and societal reasons are much more prominent, to the extent that I'd consider any element of "choice" to be the result of indoctrination.

Again, if it was a completely free choice, why don't women who aren't part of such a religion choose to wear them?

Hardly any Muslim women in the West actually wear a burkha.

An article on the interesting Swedish site islamologi.se picks the story up:In France, where there is an inflamed debate on the matter right now, the first investigation carried out by the police last year found that there were 367 women in France who wore burka or Niqab – 0.015% of the population. This was so low that the secret service was told to count again, and came up with a figure of 2,000; in Holland there seem to be about 400, and in Sweden a respectable guess suggests 100.

So either this "conditioning" is not very effective or non-existent..

I personally only know of one woman well who would choose to wear a burqa. She is an ex-atheist, white, blue-eyed, blond haired nurse who met an Iranian doctor while she was working as a nurse with doctors without borders. They married and she later converted. She is completely "western" in every aspect of her life and far from being some little subservient mouse she is for all intents and purposes to boss of the home.

Brown Bomber

smacl wrote: »

That presumes the French burka ban is there solely to protect the interests of Muslim women in France. I'm not convinced that that is the case. Cynical perhaps, but I don't believe that the majority French politicians could give a damn about the best interests of Muslim women.

To clarify, you are in favour of the "tyranny of the majority"?