Burka ban

robindch

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

smacl wrote: »

That said, what a woman does or does not wear in public, unless acting on behalf of the state or attending school, has little to do with secularism.

Possibly so, but the state can also argue that when its citizens are on state property, the state should do what it can to ensure that all people are equal, that each citizen is treated equally by every other and -- similar to people and institutions requiring certain dress-codes when people are on their property -- the state does have a parallel right to mandate a dress-code when people are on its property (same as it already does with respect to, say, nudism and I don't see too many people complaining about that particular restriction).

swampgas

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

I have flip-flopped on this issue a few times. It's a very tricky one to tease out.

What bothers me most about the Burqa in a country like Belgium or France is how it appears to be a rejection by the wearer of everyone else around them. It's not simply a refusal to integrate, it comes across as a refusal to meet, to communicate, and to be friendly with regular normal people according to the norms of a western society. I think many people can feel quite insulted that they are being treated so suspiciously by the burqa wearer.

It's not just the burqa itself that grates, it's the cultural values that go with it - that women can only interact with other people, especially men, in extremely restricted ways defined by the men in their families.

I suspect that banning the burqa is more about a refusal to accept the cultural baggage and behaviour that goes along with it.

I suppose a ban is one way that wider society can make a statement that it finds such behaviour unacceptable, but is there a better way? I have no idea.

Brown Bomber

smacl wrote: »

So you're saying it is fine in all circumstances to upset the public by behaving in a way they consider to be unacceptable or even indecent simply in order express yourself however you see fit? Not exactly very considerate of ones fellow citizen now is it?

It's called "live and let live" and it's far more "considerate" to others than "live and criminalise minorities clothing".

smacl wrote: »

For multiculturalism to work you need compromises from all involved. Tolerance includes behaving in such a way as is acceptable with the larger group when participating as part of that group. Failing to do so, and hanging on to traditions that others find offensive leads to ghettoisation, as can be seen in the projects in Paris.

You are just making **** up. The Paris "ghettos" are based on social class. Religion or genetics has nothing to do with it.

gaynorvader wrote: »

No, it is not a wild assumption to assume that wife beating happens in Muslim households. I don't think Muslim men are above the foibles of non-Muslim men.
.

Unless you can provide evidence of it happening proportionally more what is your point?

kylith wrote: »

A burqa renders the wearer unidentifiable, therefore it a de facto disguise. If it is merely a garment then so is a balaclava or a bandanna covering the nose and mouth.

I am afraid you are still incorrect. If I wear a balaclava to "disguise" my face while I rob a bank then it is a disguise. If it wear it to keep my face warm then it is a functional piece of clothing.

Likewise, if Michael Jackson wears a burqa to "disguise" himself from the parperazzi then it is a disguise. If a woman wears it for example to preserve her modesty then it is a functional garment.

kylith

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am afraid you are still incorrect. If I wear a balaclava to "disguise" my face while I rob a bank then it is a disguise. If it wear it to keep my face warm then it is a functional piece of clothing.

Likewise, if Michael Jackson wears a burqa to "disguise" himself from the parperazzi then it is a disguise. If a woman wears it for example to preserve her modesty then it is a functional garment.

You would not be allowed to enter a bank or business if you were wearing a balaclava because it hides your identity, regardless of whether or not you were wearing it to keep your face warm. Surely a burka, which provides the same level of anonymity, should be treated the same?

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

kylith wrote: »

You would not be allowed to enter a bank or business if you were wearing a balaclava because it hides your identity, regardless of whether or not you were wearing it to keep your face warm. Surely a burka, which provides the same level of anonymity, should be treated the same?

I'd agree; no special treatment should be offered to burka wearers where the issue is one of security and there is a demonstrable necessity for faces to be visible. But that is quite different to forcing someone to wear clothing they consider immodest in the course of their day to day life. I'd imagine forcing all the women in France/Belgium to only wear bikinis might meet some resistance in certain quarters... because most women would consider it immodest in normal day to day life, and most would object, quite rightly, to being told they could not wear clothing of their own choice. Why should it be different when it's 'some' instead of 'most'?

robindch wrote: »

I don't believe that prohibiting the burka is "bad". On the contrary, I put the ban into the same general category as bans of guns, flick-knives etc -- things which do restrict the legitimate, well-informed freedom of a small minority for the greater good of a greater number whose freedom is limited by the freedom expressed by the other group.

I think it's unfair to place the burka in the same category as a weapon; you might consider it an idealogical weapon but the fact remains you just can't shoot, stab, blow up or physically threaten anyone with a burka... at least no more than you can with an Hermes scarf anyway.

robindch wrote: »

In ideological terms, the ban does restrict the right to wear what one wants to, but in practical terms, the ban -- as I said above -- is far less restrictive than the ban on everything but the burka enforced by islamic practice. Again as above, the "restrictions" are not the same and should not be compared as though they were.

Agreed, but 'our bad ban isn't as bad as their bad ban' doesn't make it a good ban.

robindch wrote: »

The ban prevents "people from seeing muslim women being submissive" only indirectly. Directly -- and this is the point of the ban -- it prevents coercive men and women from subtly or unsubtly forcing the greater number of women to wear the burka, when they do not wish to wear it, including (controversially) those women who have been brainwashed into thinking that it's a good idea (I do not believe it is).

It actually quite directly stops people from seeing women in burkas, in an (apparent?) attempt to foil coercive individuals. Surely it's better to attack the coercive/brainwashing behaviours, so that we can then be assured that women wearing burkas are simply asserting the same rights as women not wearing bikinis?

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

swampgas wrote: »

I suspect that banning the burqa is more about a refusal to accept the cultural baggage and behaviour that goes along with it.

As per this now slightly dated article from the Telegraph, I think the prime motivator at a political and social level has more to do with the spread of Islam in Europe, particularly more fundamental practices. In many ways, this is easy to attack as ignoble and insular, so focus has been shifted to the plight of burka wearing women and the security risks they pose. Personally, I think this is all smoke and mirrors, and is avoiding the bigger issue.

So while at face value a burka ban could run contrary to Liberté, égalité, fraternité at an individual level, it could also be seen as protecting these concepts by demanding they be visibly upheld by all citizens.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are just making **** up. The Paris "ghettos" are based on social class. Religion or genetics has nothing to do with it.

From an article I previously linked

Fadela Amara, an activist and former minister in the French government wrote:

Amara began by relaying the history of banlieues, the working class neighborhoods that surround French cities. Originally diverse, composed of native French and immigrant populations fighting for the same social and labor issues, now many neighborhoods primarily house poor Muslim families. During this transition, few politicians took up the cause of improving the lives of residents, and their political alienation provided fertile ground for fundamentalist movements. This led to a surge in what Amara referred to as “more arcane traditions” —namely forced marriage, polygamy, circumcision, and violence against women.

Have you even read this thread in its entirety?

gaynorvader

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

Brown Bomber wrote: »

{...}

Unless you can provide evidence of it happening proportionally more what is your point?

{...}

I don't know why you hold Muslims on such a pedestal, but if you're not interested in reasoned debate I'm done.

Piliger

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

gaynorvader wrote: »

I don't know why you hold Muslims on such a pedestal, but if you're not interested in reasoned debate I'm done.

The penny drops :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber

gaynorvader wrote: »

I don't know why you hold Muslims on such a pedestal, but if you're not interested in reasoned debate I'm done.

I hold people in high regard. I don't hold Muslims in any higher regard than anyone else. However, I did have a Muslim girlfriend and lived for a time amongst Muslims and this insight has enabled me see through the right-wing propaganda as the lies that they are. Racism and bigotry against Muslims has sadly become socially acceptable, but not to me. I have no intention of going for the lowest hanging fruit.

Brown Bomber

smacl wrote: »

From an article I previously linked

Do you normally take the word of politicians as fact?

Brown Bomber

kylith wrote: »

You would not be allowed to enter a bank or business if you were wearing a balaclava because it hides your identity, regardless of whether or not you were wearing it to keep your face warm. Surely a burka, which provides the same level of anonymity, should be treated the same?

If I put a cardboard box over my head and you can't see my face I won't be allowed into a bank as it is "disguising" my identity but it is still just a cardboard box.

You are mixing up the noun, "Mask" with the verb.

fainthope2310

I'm religious and support the ban

oh! vote :"I'm non-religious and do not support the ban"

Banbh

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

BB: this insight has enabled me see through the right-wing propaganda

My propaganda is all of finest left-wing material.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do you normally take the word of politicians as fact?

AFAIK, Fadela Amara is a socialist of Algerian extract, and very involved in both Islamic feminism and working in impoverished inner city areas in France. I'd regard her opinion on the burka ban in France as well informed, humane, and very much biased towards the interests of Muslim women in France. Do you take issue with her?

tfitzgerald

I'm religious and do not support the ban

swampgas wrote: »

I have flip-flopped on this issue a few times. It's a very tricky one to tease out.

What bothers me most about the Burqa in a country like Belgium or France is how it appears to be a rejection by the wearer of everyone else around them. It's not simply a refusal to integrate, it comes across as a refusal to meet, to communicate, and to be friendly with regular normal people according to the norms of a western society. I think many people can feel quite insulted that they are being treated so suspiciously by the burqa wearer.

It's not just the burqa itself that grates, it's the cultural values that go with it - that women can only interact with other people, especially men, in extremely restricted ways defined by the men in their families.

I suspect that banning the burqa is more about a refusal to accept the cultural baggage and behaviour that goes along with it.

I suppose a ban is one way that wider society can make a statement that it finds such behaviour unacceptable, but is there a better way? I have no idea.

This is what I wanted to say. But I would not have said it as good thanks swampgas

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Possibly so, but the state can also argue that when its citizens are on state property, the state should do what it can to ensure that all people are equal, that each citizen is treated equally by every other and -- similar to people and institutions requiring certain dress-codes when people are on their property -- the state does have a parallel right to mandate a dress-code when people are on its property (same as it already does with respect to, say, nudism and I don't see too many people complaining about that particular restriction).

By that argument shouldn't the state simply mandate a plain unisex uniform for all citizens? So that people aren't treated unequally for wearing conspicuously expensive clothes, or looking like they're homeless. That's the argument you're offering essentially.....

The nudism issue is also interesting; France and Belgium both prohibit nudism generally, because most people consider it immodest. Why then prevent people from covering themselves further, for the very same reason? If anything a ban on nudism endorses the idea of wearing a burka, and runs contrary to the idea of banning burkas.

swampgas wrote: »

What bothers me most about the Burqa in a country like Belgium or France is how it appears to be a rejection by the wearer of everyone else around them. It's not simply a refusal to integrate, it comes across as a refusal to meet, to communicate, and to be friendly with regular normal people according to the norms of a western society. I think many people can feel quite insulted that they are being treated so suspiciously by the burqa wearer.

Isn't it a little unfair to legislate against someone just because other people don't educate themselves sufficiently to understand them?

swampgas wrote: »

It's not just the burqa itself that grates, it's the cultural values that go with it - that women can only interact with other people, especially men, in extremely restricted ways defined by the men in their families.
I suspect that banning the burqa is more about a refusal to accept the cultural baggage and behaviour that goes along with it.

I suspect that's true; rather than dealing with the cultural differences and finding ways to resolve them, politicians are trying to bully away the visible evidence that they need to do something difficult.

swampgas wrote: »

I suppose a ban is one way that wider society can make a statement that it finds such behaviour unacceptable, but is there a better way?

But does society actually find burka wearing itself unacceptable? I don't think so. It's the belief that it's a visual reminder of other perceived behaviour that society seems to have a problem with, and banning the burka neither addresses that belief nor that behaviour.

Banbh

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

Does anyone know how many steps behind a man a burkad women must walk? I have found one, three and five steps on different sites in my Googling.
In New York in the 1700s the law was that a slave had to walk 15 paces behind her/his owner.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

If she's not wearing a burka will he allow her to walk beside him?

swampgas

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

Absolam wrote: »

Isn't it a little unfair to legislate against someone just because other people don't educate themselves sufficiently to understand them?

I'm not sure what you mean here: is it that if we understand why people wear burkhas well enough we will be happy with it? For me the issue is that certain groups of people have a culture that prevents women participating fully in society. IMO, in Western European culture there is an implicit assumption that someone's religion is mostly a private affair. A woman in a burka is a woman who forced to limit her interaction with society to the bare minimum.

I suspect that's true; rather than dealing with the cultural differences and finding ways to resolve them, politicians are trying to bully away the visible evidence that they need to do something difficult.

Sometimes crude mechanisms are all that are available. I think the burka ban does send a clear message though - that society has a problem with a culture that demands that women go burka-clad in public, and which insists on the segregation of women from society in general.

But does society actually find burka wearing itself unacceptable? I don't think so. It's the belief that it's a visual reminder of other perceived behaviour that society seems to have a problem with, and banning the burka neither addresses that belief nor that behaviour.

It's hard to separate the two. Almost nobody wears a burka out of choice who is not a member of a community that requires it. So the correlation of burka wearing to anti-women cultural attitudes is likely to be very strong.

An interesting question is whether the burka ban generates any debate within the "banned" communities themselves? Do those communities just continue in their authoritarian, male-dominated way, perhaps digging their heels in even more because of the perceived challenge to their culture?

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

swampgas wrote: »

An interesting question is whether the burka ban generates any debate within the "banned" communities themselves? Do those communities just continue in their authoritarian, male-dominated way, perhaps digging their heels in even more because of the perceived challenge to their culture?

Apparently so, if you look at Islamic feminism for example, there seems to be a strong anti-burqa sentiment among many Muslim women. It is worth remembering that in the west, only a tiny minority of Muslim women wear the burqa. As such, wearing a burqa in public where it does cause offence could also be taken as a display of antipathy for the surrounding society, even if that is not the intent.

old hippy

I'm religious and support the ban

Female empowerment

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25254555

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

swampgas wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean here: is it that if we understand why people wear burkhas well enough we will be happy with it? For me the issue is that certain groups of people have a culture that prevents women participating fully in society. IMO, in Western European culture there is an implicit assumption that someone's religion is mostly a private affair. A woman in a burka is a woman who forced to limit her interaction with society to the bare minimum.

In response to your point:

swampgas wrote: »

it comes across as a refusal to meet, to communicate, and to be friendly with regular normal people according to the norms of a western society. I think many people can feel quite insulted that they are being treated so suspiciously by the burqa wearer.

Assuming the motivation of a burka wearer, being insulted by that assumed motivation, and legislating against burka wearing because of the insult caused by that assumption is plainly nonsense.

I agree that burka wearing women who are forced to limit their interaction with society should be assisted, equally burka wearing women who choose to limit their interaction with society should be respected, and not criminalised.

smacl wrote: »

Apparently so, if you look at Islamic feminism for example, there seems to be a strong anti-burqa sentiment among many Muslim women. It is worth remembering that in the west, only a tiny minority of Muslim women wear the burqa. As such, wearing a burqa in public where it does cause offence could also be taken as a display of antipathy for the surrounding society, even if that is not the intent.

Reminiscent of western women burning bras in the 70s? I think it would be interesting so see how many more muslim women would choose to cover their faces if it were entirely optional and there was no sense of coercion involved (on one side) and no stigma attached (on the other).
Frankly, wearing a burka in public where it does cause offense draws attention to those who are unjustifiably offended as much as to the woman offending them.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

I agree that burka wearing women who are forced to limit their interaction with society should be assisted, equally burka wearing women who choose to limit their interaction with society should be respected, and not criminalised.

Only true if you believe the ban is motivated primarily by the desire to improve the lot of Muslim women in the countries in question. I don't believe it is. I think it is more about publicly discouraging the spread of more extreme forms of Islam, or more kindly perhaps, encouraging Muslims in to adhere to local cultural norms. While many will be honestly motivated by the women's rights issue, many more are doubtless hiding behind it and using it as a rallying point.

Reminiscent of western women burning bras in the 70s? I think it would be interesting so see how many more muslim women would choose to cover their faces if it were entirely optional and there was no sense of coercion involved (on one side) and no stigma attached (on the other).

Some, but not that many I'd imagine. If you go to more relaxed Islamic states like Abu Dhabi or Dubai, you still only see a minority of women wearing burqas.

Frankly, wearing a burka in public where it does cause offense draws attention to those who are unjustifiably offended as much as to the woman offending them.

Draws the attention of whom exactly? While this might be the case to an observer such as yourself, you have to ask is the same true of most people? For any country that votes in favor of a burqa ban, this is not the case.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Only true if you believe the ban is motivated primarily by the desire to improve the lot of Muslim women in the countries in question. I don't believe it is. I think it is more about publicly discouraging the spread of more extreme forms of Islam, or more kindly perhaps, encouraging Muslims in to adhere to local cultural norms. While many will be honestly motivated by the women's rights issue, many more are doubtless hiding behind it and using it as a rallying point.

Actually I think it is motivated by being seen to be publicly discouraging the less palatable aspects of Islam. Politicians getting to look like they are doing something, without actually doing anything.

smacl wrote: »

Some, but not that many I'd imagine. If you go to more relaxed Islamic states like Abu Dhabi or Dubai, you still only see a minority of women wearing burqas.

So absent coercion in either direction, a minority of women choose to wear burkas. Can't see why we need to legislate that freedom out of existence really....

smacl wrote: »

Draws the attention of whom exactly? While this might be the case to an observer such as yourself, you have to ask is the same true of most people? For any country that votes in favor of a burqa ban, this is not the case.

Well, it has apparently drawn the attention of everyone contributing to this forum and presumably similar ones around the world for a start.
And I don't think either Belgium or France voted in favour of a burka ban?

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

Actually I think it is motivated by being seen to be publicly discouraging the less palatable aspects of Islam. Politicians getting to look like they are doing something, without actually doing anything.

That's by and large what politicians are good at. Being cynical, by showing an open display of intolerance, you could also say that they're purposefully making their countries less attractive immigration destinations for Muslims than their close neighbours.

So absent coercion in either direction, a minority of women choose to wear burkas. Can't see why we need to legislate that freedom out of existence really....

I don't agree. If it is not acceptable, for whatever reason, the numbers are not important.

Well, it has apparently drawn the attention of everyone contributing to this forum and presumably similar ones around the world for a start.
And I don't think either Belgium or France voted in favour of a burka ban?

Both France and Belgium did vote in favour of burqa bans, and wearing a burqa in public is not legal in either of these countries.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

I don't agree. If it is not acceptable, for whatever reason, the numbers are not important.

It's acceptable to those that want to wear them, if the numbers are not important why legislate against a minority?


Both France and Belgium did vote in favour of burqa bans, and wearing a burqa in public is not legal in either of these countries.[/QUOTE]
No, both countries banned the wearing of burkas, but neither country held a plebistice or referendum on the issue; the countries didn't vote for a ban, the governments did. It may seem a niggly point, but when it comes to civil liberties it seems to me an important one.

MrPudding

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

Absolam wrote: »

I
No, both countries banned the wearing of burkas, but neither country held a plebistice or referendum on the issue; the countries didn't vote for a ban, the governments did. It may seem a niggly point, but when it comes to civil liberties it seems to me an important one.

But that is how these things work... People vote for the government and the government, expect in particular areas where a referendum is needed, make the decisions and legislate on the people's behalf. Besides, had there been a vote do you expect a different result? According to Pew the majority of French supported it.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/07/08/widespread-support-for-banning-full-islamic-veil-in-western-europe/

MrP

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

It's acceptable to those that want to wear them, if the numbers are not important why legislate against a minority?

Because the frequency at which an unacceptable action happens, or that the action is carried out by a minority, does not make that action any more acceptable.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

MrPudding wrote: »

But that is how these things work... People vote for the government and the government, expect in particular areas where a referendum is needed, make the decisions and legislate on the people's behalf. Besides, had there been a vote do you expect a different result? According to Pew the majority of French supported it.
MrP

Yes it is, though in fairness it's not like anyone was elected to government on a burka banning platform. At best Belgium and France voted for a burka ban as much as Ireland voted for a household tax and a bank bailout.
And yes, that poll shows huge support, but in my optimistic idealism I would hope that if it went to a vote the French people might show more enthusiasm for their founding principles of liberty and equality.

smacl wrote: »

Because the frequency at which an unacceptable action happens, or that the action is carried out by a minority, does not make that action any more acceptable.

You seem to offering 'an unacceptable action' as an absolute; however what is and isn't acceptable is far from absolute. In this particular instance wearing a burka is perfectly acceptable to some people, even overtly desirable to some. How often they do it, or how many of them do it, doesn't change the fact that it is perfectly acceptable to them.