Burka ban

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

Now you're being silly.
And now even sillier.

You're absolutely right. Just as legislating to force people to dress in a certain way, so that other citizens can use facial recognition to freely interact with them, is silly.

MrPudding

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

Absolam wrote: »

Should we revise motorcycle helmet laws too?

Try wearing a motorcycle helmet into, an office building, a bank, a filling station or even tesco.

MrP

robindch

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

Absolam wrote: »

Just as legislating to force people to dress in a certain way, so that other citizens can use facial recognition to freely interact with them, is silly.

Have a read back through the thread. The majority in favour of the ban are less concerned about the right to see people's faces and more concerned about the trampling of women's rights.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

MrPudding wrote: »

Try wearing a motorcycle helmet into, an office building, a bank, a filling station or even tesco.

MrP

So we can agree there are certain specific situations where a masked individual presents an imminent threat and should be required to uncover their face. I don't see how that extends to five year old trick or treaters though. Or even eighty five year old muslim women walking to the local shop. Nor has it required legislation thus far; banks, offices and tesco seem to do fine with a sign asking people to remove their helmets.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Have a read back through the thread. The majority in favour of the ban are less concerned about the right to see people's faces and more concerned about the trampling of women's rights.

That doesn't seem to have been councillor Joe O’Callaghans point though, nor was it Banbhs when she said

Banbh wrote: »

Yes we should have laws banning masks that conceal identity. Citizens should be free to interact as people, and this requires facial recognition.

If you read back through the thread, I have also debated the merits of the womens' rights argument, it just wasn't what was brought up at this recent point.

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

Try wearing a motorcycle helmet into, an office building, a bank, a filling station or even tesco.

And yet we have no laws criminalising this behaviour. We find no need for them. Whereas a woman who for her own cultural reasons chooses to wear a particular head covering needs to be criminalised?

I'm not seeing it, myself.

Banbh

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

Maybe you don't see it because you are on the wrong thread. This one is not about what people choose to wear on their heads.

Peregrinus

Well, I'm responding to a comment about motorcyle helmets.

But the issue, surely, is about women wearing things which cover their faces, or much of their faces? And the face is part of the head, is it not?

And my basic point remains; parliament (a largely male parliament, as it happens) passing laws telling women what they may and may not wear doesn't look like a shining example of female liberation or empowerment to me. And when Councillor Joe O'Callaghan sums up his motivation for urging this as "When in Rome, do as the Romans do . . . we should stop apologising to the whole world", that reinforces my suspicions that this has less to do with empowerment and more to do with enforcing conformity and reducing the visibilty of People With Brown Eyes And Black Hair.

I have every respect for you, Banbh. But on this issue you are togging out with some people for whom I have rather less respect.

Banbh

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

But the issue, surely, is about women wearing things which cover their faces, or much of their faces? And the face is part of the head, is it not?

And the head is connected to the neck but we are not talking about scarves. Can I suggest that we use the word mask or face-concealment to avoid confusion?

As regards parliamentary balance, I agree that it needs to be addressed. But on this issue the two power brokers are parliament or mosque and there is no movement to democratise or even allow women in those dens of reaction.

As regards togging out, one often finds oneself with strange bedfellows on an issue but that doesn't change the issue. I once found myself in the same camp with Ian Paisley on a European matter but this did not mean I shared his view of the Creation story. Similarly you are now in the 'kill those who insult Islam' camp but, as always, I respect your reasoned arguments.

Peregrinus

Banbh wrote: »

And the head is connected to the neck but we are not talking about scarves. Can I suggest that we use the word mask or face-concealment to avoid confusion?

You want legislation banning masks?

When Absolam suggested that you were seeking to ban hallowe’en, you told him he was being silly. But if you want to talk about legislation banning masks, you can only contribute to the silliness.

Maybe the word we should use is “burqa”? Is that, in fact, what you want to ban?

Banbh wrote: »

As regards parliamentary balance, I agree that it needs to be addressed. But on this issue the two power brokers are parliament or mosque and there is no movement to democratise or even allow women in those dens of reaction.

As regards togging out, one often finds oneself with strange bedfellows on an issue but that doesn't change the issue. I once found myself in the same camp with Ian Paisley on a European matter but this did not mean I shared his view of the Creation story. Similarly you are now in the 'kill those who insult Islam' camp but, as always, I respect your reasoned arguments.

I’m awaiting your evidence that no woman ever chooses to wear a burqa, and that compelling her not to, while it may look oppressive, is in fact liberating her from an oppression by somebody else. Actual evidence; not just an assumption.

And, before you rush in, I’m not claiming that no woman has ever been compelled to wear a burqa. I’m just looking for evidence that in this country compulsion in the matter is so widespread, and such a problem, that we are justified in denying dignity and autonomy to a woman who wishes to make this choice.

Let me tell an illuminating story here. A connection of mine worked for a time in a University in Western Sydney which shall remain nameless. She found herself teaching a seminar group, several of whose members were Muslim women. And several of those chose to wear various forms of customary headgear. (In fairness, nobody wore a burqa, but the story is nevertheless illustrative.)

She observed as follows (and she’s a social psychologist, so observing people is what she does):

The non-Muslim students expected the Muslim women who wore traditional headgear to be meek, deferential and quiet, and to avoid or be embarrassed by discussing certain subjects that were likely to come up on the course. They had a stereotype associated with the headgear.

The Muslim women who wore the headgear were either unaware of this stereotype, or indifferent to it. At any rate, they did not conform to it. On the contrary, they were confident, assertive, articulate, vocal, opinionated (all characteristics of Middle Eastern cultures). And they were frank in engaging with topics that they were expected to avoid.

The non-Muslim students resented them for not conforming to the stereotype, and tended to characterise them as pushy, bossy, dominant, selfish, rude. It wasn’t my connection’s judgment that any of these characterisations were justified. If they had been women from the mainstream culture displaying these behaviours, they would not have got the same reaction. (And if they had been men from the mainstream culture . . . )

In other words, if these women were being victimised at all, it was by the expectations of the dominant culture about women who wear the hijab, and by their classmate’s reaction when they failed to conform to those expectations.

I think something similar - but more serious - could be going on here. Obviously, it’s intrinsically disempowering to be denied dignity and autonomy by not having the right - which everyone else enjoys - to decide how to dress yourself and how to present yourself to the world.

We try to justify this by saying that these women are already denied the right to make this choice by those nasty mullahs, and it is somehow less disempowering for them to have us decide how they will dress, rather than the mullahs. (Quite how this is less disempowering is never made clear.)

That looks a bit shaky to me. In the first place, it doesn’t look so much like an argument about empowering women as an argument about who gets to disempower them - nice white middle-class us, or those nasty mullahs. Women - not for the first time - are simply pawns in someone else’s struggle for domination. But in the second place, the whole thing falls over if, in fact, the women are choosing to dress as they do, or if any significant proportion of them are. And on this point I’m seeing an awful lot of appeal to prejudice and stereotype - some of it verging on racism - and not a huge amount of evidence. To start by assuming that women are powerless and lack autonomy is, in itself, a very effective way of denying them power and autonomy, because it enables you to dismiss their experiences and their accounts as the products of oppression. Or even never hear them, and not notice that you have never heard them.

You see my problem here?

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Muslim women who wore the headgear were either unaware of this stereotype, or indifferent to it. At any rate, they did not conform to it. On the contrary, they were confident, assertive, articulate, vocal, opinionated (all characteristics of Middle Eastern cultures). And they were frank in engaging with topics that they were expected to avoid.

This would be similar to my experience of working with Muslim women in the UAE, though women in the professional classes seemed not to wear burqas, certainly not going to work. I also suspect that Middle Eastern students that you encounter in Western universities are atypical insofar as they are drawn from the well educated upper echelons of society, and possibly not representative of the broader society from which they've come. The fact that they share a common religion with the Muslim women in the banlieus in Paris for example is probably not enough to infer they have other similarities, and also highlights the dangers of stereotyping.

Banbh

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

Peregrinus, a chara, you suggest we use the word burqa to avoid confusion with head scarves but then go on to tell us interesting things about university students and say "In fairness, nobody wore a burqa, but the story is nevertheless illustrative." Well in fairness I think you are off the subject. So I will continue to use 'masks' to describe the face-concealing black yoke as it is the most accurate description.

On the broader issue of Islam in society, I have the same contempt for it that I would have for any organisation that reduces women to servitude, cruelly mutilates them in those countries where it has control of the State, discriminates against gays, imprisoning them and even killing them in several countries where it has State control, teaching children cruel anti-human values by means of physical punishment and denying science and reason.

Your suggestion of 'verging on the racist' is verging on the looking-around-for-something to defend the indefensible.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

Peregrinus, a chara, you suggest we use the word burqa to avoid confusion with head scarves but then go on to tell us interesting things about university students and say "In fairness, nobody wore a burqa, but the story is nevertheless illustrative." Well in fairness I think you are off the subject. So I will continue to use 'masks' to describe the face-concealing black yoke as it is the most accurate description.

So you want to ban masks that are face-concealing black yokes, but not the face-concealing black yokes that are hallow'een masks. Are we talking about a partial ban here? How far does it go?
Does it extend to fair skinned, blue eyed individuals covering their faces with authentic arran knitted scarves in the winter? Or does it stop at dark eyed, dark skinned women covering their faces with silk headscarves in the summer?
Where do you intend to draw the line for who can cover their face and when? And I suppose, what makes you think you have a right to determine this on other peoples behalf?

Zubeneschamali

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

So you want to ban masks that are face-concealing black yokes, but not the face-concealing black yokes that are hallow'een masks.

What if someone dresses in a burqa for halloween?

Banbh

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

Absolam, I haven't drafted a law; the Government won't let me and I don't think I have a right to determine this on other people's behalf. This is being discussed in the light of bans in a couple of European countries and whether Ireland should also have such a ban. The rest of your post is offensive and I will disregard it.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What if someone dresses in a burqa for halloween?

Maybe it depends on what religion they are? Or where they're from?

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

Absolam, I haven't drafted a law; the Government won't let me and I don't think I have a right to determine this on other people's behalf. This is being discussed in the light of bans in a couple of European countries and whether Ireland should also have such a ban. The rest of your post is offensive and I will disregard it.

Are you offended that someone might want to decide who may or may not cover their faces based on ethnic origin (in which case I applaud your sentiment), or is it something I said about Arrans (in which case I am bemused)?

gaynorvader

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

Peregrinus wrote: »

You want legislation banning masks?
{...}


I’m awaiting your evidence that no woman ever chooses to wear a burqa, and that compelling her not to, while it may look oppressive, is in fact liberating her from an oppression by somebody else. Actual evidence; not just an assumption.
{...}

It's nigh on impossible to prove a negative. A better proof would be to find one case where a woman chose to wear a burqa that was not the result of religious or societal influences or for the sake of a parody.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's nigh on impossible to prove a negative. A better proof would be to find one case where a woman chose to wear a burqa that was not the result of religious or societal influences or for the sake of a parody.

You could say the same about wearing ties... Or sports jackets. Just because someone wears something as a result of societal pressure doesn't mean we should ban it. Or if we must, could it not be something like mullets?

gaynorvader

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

Absolam wrote: »

You could say the same about wearing ties... Or sports jackets. Just because someone wears something as a result of societal pressure doesn't mean we should ban it. Or if we must, could it not be something like mullets?

People wear ties and sports jackets outside of places where society demands them though. You can see people wearing ties and not wearing ties at parties, ditto with sports jackets.
That wasn't really my point though, my point was it is disingenuous to ask someone to prove a negative.

kylith

Peregrinus wrote: »

And yet we have no laws criminalising this behaviour. We find no need for them. Whereas a woman who for her own cultural reasons chooses to wear a particular head covering needs to be criminalised?

I'm not seeing it, myself.

It's a face covering more than a head covering. More mask than beret.

People wearing helmets, while not criminalised, would be refused service or entry in many establishments. I really can't think of any logical reason why a burka should be treated any differently. It is not a requirement of religion. If women, as you say, choose to wear it then they can also choose not to wear it. If they can't choose not to wear it then why women feel forced to hide their faces needs to be looked into

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

kylith wrote: »

People wearing helmets, while not criminalised, would be refused service or entry in many establishments. I really can't think of any logical reason why a burka should be treated any differently.

A far more reasonable position. No requirement to criminalise innocent women, simply a matter of fact approach to circumstances where it is unusually necessary for members of the public to be particularly identifiable.

Peregrinus

kylith wrote: »

It's a face covering more than a head covering. More mask than beret.

People wearing helmets, while not criminalised, would be refused service or entry in many establishments. I really can't think of any logical reason why a burka should be treated any differently. It is not a requirement of religion. If women, as you say, choose to wear it then they can also choose not to wear it. If they can't choose not to wear it then why women feel forced to hide their faces needs to be looked into

But Banbh wants it treated differently. She wants it criminalised. She wants people not to be free to make a choice about this.

As to your question about why women “feel forced to hide their faces”, we could equally ask whether a woman wearing a bikini feels “forced” to cover her breasts? And if the answer is “yes”, does that mean we should criminalise her for not going topless?

All of us make choices about how to dress based in part - in large part, I suggest - on how others will react to our presentation of ourselves. It seems more than a little dehumanising to assume that someone who makes a choice that we ourselves would not have made must have been “coerced” into that choice in a way in which our own choices have not been coerced; we are simply taking our own choices and elevating them into norms which everyone must follow, or be assumed to be mentally or morally incompetent.

Peregrinus

gaynorvader wrote: »

People wear ties and sports jackets outside of places where society demands them though. You can see people wearing ties and not wearing ties at parties, ditto with sports jackets.
That wasn't really my point though, my point was it is disingenuous to ask someone to prove a negative.

But isn’t it worse to suggest that, because we can’t prove a negative is true, we must assume that it is true and, on the basis of that assumption, we must criminalise an ethnic and culture minority if they fail to conform to our cultural norms?

My starting point is that this is pretty repressive legislation. Dictating to a woman what she may and many not wear is inherently repressive - doubly so when the law is directed at a minority community. Those who call for this legislation really need to be prepared to make a case for it. Simply asserting that nobody in Ireland chooses to wear a burqa and then refusing to produce evidence in support of the claim because “you can’t prove a negative” is not anything like the kind of case that might even begin to justify such offensive and dehumanising legislation.

Mark Hamill

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

Peregrinus wrote: »

It seems more than a little dehumanising to assume that someone who makes a choice that we ourselves would not have made must have been “coerced” into that choice in a way in which our own choices have not been coerced; we are simply taking our own choices and elevating them into norms which everyone must follow, or be assumed to be mentally or morally incompetent.

It is not an assumption. There has yet to be a single example of a woman presented on this thread that has freely chosen to wear the burka, they all have reasons that clearly point to religious indoctrination. This is why it's only women of a specific subset of a specific religion that wear the burka.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It is not an assumption. There has yet to be a single example of a woman presented on this thread that has freely chosen to wear the burka, they all have reasons that clearly point to religious indoctrination. This is why it's only women of a specific subset of a specific religion that wear the burka.

1. I confess that I haven't read through 182 pages of this thread. Have we heard anything at all from burqa-wearers? And, if it's not too much of a pain, can you link to the post, if there is one?

2. Are you assuming that any decision made on religious considerations is the result of "indoctrination" and is not "free"? 'Cause, you know, that would be just another (fairly transparent) technique for dismissing the views and experiences of the people you are seeking to oppress.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Peregrinus wrote: »

1. I confess that I haven't read through 182 pages of this thread. Have we heard anything at all from burqa-wearers? And, if it's not too much of a pain, can you link to the post, if there is one?

2. Are you assuming that any decision made on religious considerations is the result of "indoctrination" and is not "free"? 'Cause, you know, that would be just another (fairly transparent) technique for dismissing the views and experiences of the people you are seeking to oppress.

I linked a couple of studies here based on my take on the issue in a previous post here. The feminist French pro ban argument equally deserves a read. Amnesty remains firmly against the ban.

gaynorvader

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

Peregrinus wrote: »

But isn’t it worse to suggest that, because we can’t prove a negative is true, we must assume that it is true and, on the basis of that assumption, we must criminalise an ethnic and culture minority if they fail to conform to our cultural norms?

My starting point is that this is pretty repressive legislation. Dictating to a woman what she may and many not wear is inherently repressive - doubly so when the law is directed at a minority community. Those who call for this legislation really need to be prepared to make a case for it. Simply asserting that nobody in Ireland chooses to wear a burqa and then refusing to produce evidence in support of the claim because “you can’t prove a negative” is not anything like the kind of case that might even begin to justify such offensive and dehumanising legislation.

That's not what I suggested. I suggested that instead of asking someone to prove their point by proving a negative that is was instead up to you to prove your point, which would require proving a positive.

And being forced into wearing an item of clothing that robs you of your identity is pretty oppressive too. The justification has always been that women are forced to wear this clothing, so that should be stopped by making it illegal to wear it. Then the argument progressed to no, women wear it out of their own free will, no they don't, prove that they don't.

Banbh

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

we must criminalise an ethnic and culture minority if they fail to conform to our cultural norms

That's what we do when they cut off little girls' clitorises.

Mark Hamill

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

Peregrinus wrote: »

1. I confess that I haven't read through 182 pages of this thread. Have we heard anything at all from burqa-wearers? And, if it's not too much of a pain, can you link to the post, if there is one?

smacl gave an example, my response to it is here.

Peregrinus wrote: »

2. Are you assuming that any decision made on religious considerations is the result of "indoctrination" and is not "free"? 'Cause, you know, that would be just another (fairly transparent) technique for dismissing the views and experiences of the people you are seeking to oppress.

Are you assuming that I'm just making an assumption? 'Cause, you know, that would be just another (fairly transparent) technique for dismissing the views and experiences of the people you disagree with it.
As I said, it's not an assumption. Any time an example has been presented on this thread, I have gone through the justifications given and explained my disagreement with them (as have other posters). I've also discussed this at length on the Islam forum.