Burka ban

Banbh

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

There was some material from an ex-Muslim women's group in the UK that I think was posted in an earlier link. If anybody has it, I would appreciate the link.


“We cannot accept that in our country some women will be imprisoned behind a fence cut off from all social life, deprived of identity. President Sarkozy

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

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

And yet we're respectful of religions that cut off little boys foreskins. What's that all about?

Either way, is making criminals of women who cover their faces something you reasonably equate with criminalising people who physically assault children? I think there's a bit of a difference...

Banbh

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

I showed that the 'respecting their culture' argument is a crock by describing other aspects of the same 'culture' that are even more appalling. (Because I argue to stop face masks doesn't mean I condone non-medical circumcision. I don't. Nor do I accept the killing of animals by slitting their throats.)

As regards criminalising, if you do something that is against the law, it is you who are 'criminalising' yourself or to put it in plain English, choosing to break the law.

If anyone can come up with an alternative way of freeing women from this this male cult, I would happily support it.

shopawebsite

I think we shouldn't dictate others what they should wear! Its their personal matter. if some girl want to show you her face then ok, if she don't want to why you force her to show!! Isn't it against propagation of women rights we shout at every corner~!

Banbh

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

I agree. We shouldn't dictate to others what they wear but we should do something to stop the imprisonment of women in these masks. I don't know if a law banning them is the best way but cannot think of any alternative.

shopawebsite

Banbh wrote: »

I agree. We shouldn't dictate to others what they wear but we should do something to stop the imprisonment of women in these masks. I don't know if a law banning them is the best way but cannot think of any alternative.

If someone want to wear then? You can just ask if she wears at her will or is forced. But if she want to wear and you throw her in prison then isn't it imprisonment to show her what she don't want to!! Like you want to undress a girl on the road and she don't want to!!

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

I showed that the 'respecting their culture' argument is a crock by describing other aspects of the same 'culture' that are even more appalling. (Because I argue to stop face masks doesn't mean I condone non-medical circumcision. I don't. Nor do I accept the killing of animals by slitting their throats.)

I think you're giving us a good idea of how you feel about other cultures, however, just because you consider assaulting someone part of a culture,doesn't mean all aspects of that culture should be criminalised.

Banbh wrote: »

As regards criminalising, if you do something that is against the law, it is you who are 'criminalising' yourself or to put it in plain English, choosing to break the law.

Criminalising is turning an action in a criminal offense by making it illegal. If you commit a crime, you become a criminal. In plain English.

Banbh wrote: »

If anyone can come up with an alternative way of freeing women from this this male cult, I would happily support it.

Can you show us how putting women in prison for covering their faces frees women from a male cult?

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

I showed that the 'respecting their culture' argument is a crock by describing other aspects of the same 'culture' that are even more appalling. (Because I argue to stop face masks doesn't mean I condone non-medical circumcision. I don't. Nor do I accept the killing of animals by slitting their throats.)

As regards criminalising, if you do something that is against the law, it is you who are 'criminalising' yourself or to put it in plain English, choosing to break the law.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. To my mind the burqa ban is primarily about making a point about what we find socially and culturally unacceptable, for reasons that extend well beyond the garment and the person wearing it. While I'm in favour of it for this reason, it seems a bit cack-handed and a source of confusion.

Personally, I wouldn't be so concerned about halal butchery practices, as it widens the scope from human rights to animal welfare which isn't really in the same ballpark. Any form of education that includes discrimination (e.g. sexual, cultural, racial or religious) would for me be a far bigger concern.

If anyone can come up with an alternative way of freeing women from this this male cult, I would happily support it.

A strongly secular society would seem like a useful first step, along with teaching egalitarian, multi-cultural and pluralist values in our schools. I think it is also hugely important to make a point of welcoming diversity within the confines of what is socially acceptable, where what is and isn't acceptable evolves alongside society.

Banbh

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

Aaaaarghhhh! I just wrote a long response to all the things I didn't say or advocate as contained in the post of Absolam and Shopwebsite and it has gone into hyperspace when I went 'advanced'.
In case it doesn't show up I don't advocate 'throwing' women in prison, other than those guilty of violent crime, I don't want to undress women in the street (have looked at a tidy butt and day-dreamed but resent the assumption I am straight), I don't think I gave 'a good impression' of my views on other cultures but will happily on a relevant thread, don't support non-medical circumcision, amn't a blonde, blue-eyed racist...

Smacl: A strongly secular society would seem like a useful first step, along with teaching egalitarian, multi-cultural and pluralist values in our schools

Very true. And to achieve this we must stand up to sexist bullies and not allow isolate a section of society.

Ambersky

I'm religious and support the ban

Sorry double post using mobile

Ambersky

I'm religious and support the ban

Women wearing scarves, mantillas, veils or hats on their heads as an expression of their religious beliefs and their subservience to males is hardly new to people in this country. I was educated here in Ireland by women wearing veils, some of them were oppressive and some of them dedicated their lives to giving girls an education to free them and their famalies from poverty and the limited choices that were available to them. It was often counter cultural in some homes and areas to educate girls but many of us owe our education to veiled women.
I do think social change happens with education, not control and force. If an English law had come in to tell us no nuns could wear veils half the women of Ireland would have worn them and they would have become a symbol of brave radical resistance and encouraged a defiant adherance to the oppressed culture of catholicism. It takes people a few decades of freedom and continued education to get out of that kind of thinking. Banning the Burka just makes martyrs and hero's for a cause that would probably become more moderate and decline just as Christianity has if ignored a bit and better opportunities and thinking were available

Mark Hamill

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

shopawebsite wrote: »

I think we shouldn't dictate others what they should wear!

Ok. So what should we (as a society) do when one small group does try and dictate to women what they should only wear?

Mark Hamill

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

Absolam wrote: »

I think you're giving us a good idea of how you feel about other cultures, however, just because you consider assaulting someone part of a culture,doesn't mean all aspects of that culture should be criminalised.

It's almost as if "being part of a culture" is completely irrelevant and we should just take the things people do and judge them on their own merits.

Absolam wrote: »

Can you show us how putting women in prison for covering their faces frees women from a male cult?

Think of it on a social level. Putting some women in prison may not help them much, but if that stops this "culture" of women being imprisoned by a male cult then more women will be saved, not least the children being raised into it. That said, I would rather no-one was thrown into any prison, so do you have an alternative?

Mark Hamill

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

Ambersky wrote: »

Women wearing scarves, mantillas, veils or hats on their heads as an expression of their religious beliefs and their subservience to males is hardly new to people in this country. I was educated here in Ireland by women wearing veils, some of them were oppressive and some of them dedicated their lives to giving girls an education to free them and their famalies from poverty and the limited choices that were available to them. It was often counter cultural in some homes and areas to educate girls but many of us owe our education to veiled women.

You are not comparing like with like. A nun's veil does not cover her face. I have similar logical disagreements for hijab as I do the burka, but I only support coming out against the burka because of the extent of what the burka covers.

Mark Hamill

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

smacl wrote: »

A strongly secular society would seem like a useful first step, along with teaching egalitarian, multi-cultural and pluralist values in our schools. I think it is also hugely important to make a point of welcoming diversity within the confines of what is socially acceptable, where what is and isn't acceptable evolves alongside society.

Presumably to properly achieve the teaching of egalitarian, multi-cultural and pluralist values in our schools that will require the abolition of religious schools. It's not going to be very effective to have some schools be pluralist and multicultural if some other schools are allowed to keep indoctrinating kids with the material we are trying to get society to reject. To put it simply, pro burka people will just send their kids to pro burka schools, if those schools are allowed exist.

Also, doesn't welcoming diversity within the confines of what is socially acceptable inherently mean that we outlaw the diversity that is not socially acceptable? So wouldn't a burka ban be apart of this strategy? I don't think anyone here has a problem with banning FGM or wife-hitting (we have had arguments from muslims before defending the right for a muslim man to strike his wife), so why should the burka be held up on a pedestal as something we shouldn't ban?

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ok. So what should we (as a society) do when one small group does try and dictate to women what they should only wear?

Like, say, politicians? Since, ultimately, they're the ones in a position to make the law, society can only give approval or disapproval by voting for or against. Oh and peaceful protests, writing to tds etc etc in the meantime. All the things we usually do I suppose.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Think of it on a social level. Putting some women in prison may not help them much, but if that stops this "culture" of women being imprisoned by a male cult then more women will be saved, not least the children being raised into it. That said, I would rather no-one was thrown into any prison, so do you have an alternative?

Well, on a social level, it would remove the women from the cult and put them in prison. Once they're there, I guess there won't be too many children getting born into the cult, so that will bring things to an end eventually. So all we have to do is get all the women being imprisoned by a cult to wear a face covering, so we can arrest them for their own good, and get all the women wearing face coverings because god likes it to stop, so we don't mistake them for the women imprisoned by the cult. And make sure the cult don't find out what we're up to and cunningly prevent the imprisoned women giving the secret signal. Or, we could treat everyone who isn't hurting anyone else equally, and let them dress as they please.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Also, doesn't welcoming diversity within the confines of what is socially acceptable inherently mean that we outlaw the diversity that is not socially acceptable?

I sort of don't think so. I find parmigiano cheese socially unacceptable, but I wouldn't ban it. I hope others will follow my example of using reggiano, and come to see the light...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So wouldn't a burka ban be apart of this strategy? I don't think anyone here has a problem with banning FGM or wife-hitting (we have had arguments from muslims before defending the right for a muslim man to strike his wife), so why should the burka be held up on a pedestal as something we shouldn't ban?

Much like the circumcision point, it's difficult to equate allowing someone to choose their clothing to allowing someone to assault their spouse.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are not comparing like with like. A nun's veil does not cover her face. I have similar logical disagreements for hijab as I do the burka, but I only support coming out against the burka because of the extent of what the burka covers.

So it's a matter of degrees? If a muslim woman covers as much of her face, as, say, a christian bride, or a jewish widow, she's fine, but add an inch of cloth and she goes to prison?
In all of the above examples, the veil carries a cultural connotation of modesty, why does it seem people don't want muslims to look as modest as they would choose?

Mark Hamill

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

Absolam wrote: »

Like, say, politicians?

I was thinking more along the lines of subsets of religious minorities, such as the small subset of muslims who tell women they have to wear burkas.

Absolam wrote: »

Well, on a social level, it would remove the women from the cult and put them in prison. Once they're there, I guess there won't be too many children getting born into the cult, so that will bring things to an end eventually. So all we have to do is get all the women being imprisoned by a cult to wear a face covering, so we can arrest them for their own good, and get all the women wearing face coverings because god likes it to stop, so we don't mistake them for the women imprisoned by the cult. And make sure the cult don't find out what we're up to and cunningly prevent the imprisoned women giving the secret signal. Or, we could treat everyone who isn't hurting anyone else equally, and let them dress as they please.

You might want to read my post again, because you clearly don't get my point.
Oh, and the people forcing women to wear the burka (physically or psychologically through indoctrination) they are hurting others, so why not stop them?

Absolam wrote: »

I sort of don't think so. I find parmigiano cheese socially unacceptable, but I wouldn't ban it. I hope others will follow my example of using reggiano, and come to see the light...

Your poor cheese analogy ignores the part of my post which says "within the confines of what is socially acceptable". It is socially acceptable to eat cheese, or to not eat cheese, hence no issue about criminalisation. It is not socially acceptable to hit your wife, hence it is criminalised, despite it being a part of some other cultures to do so.

Absolam wrote: »

Much like the circumcision point, it's difficult to equate allowing someone to choose their clothing to allowing someone to assault their spouse.

My point is not about equating it in terms of outcome. My point is that we are perfectly happy to ban certain religiously or cultural inspired acts despite otherwise trying to be multicultural. There is no reason why we shouldn't, at the very least, approach the burka in the same way. Whether you do support the burka ban or not, the culture behind it is irrelevant.

Absolam wrote: »

So it's a matter of degrees? If a muslim woman covers as much of her face, as, say, a christian bride, or a jewish widow, she's fine, but add an inch of cloth and she goes to prison?
In all of the above examples, the veil carries a cultural connotation of modesty, why does it seem people don't want muslims to look as modest as they would choose?

Because the bride and widow wear veils only temporarily and without the fear of social or divine retribution. The burka is a permanent public feature for the women raised to "choose" it and comes with a massive amount of psychological baggage.
Also, wearing a tent because you perceive yourself as so attractive as to drive men wild just by a fleeting glance is the opposite of modest.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I was thinking more along the lines of subsets of religious minorities, such as the small subset of muslims who tell women they have to wear burkas.

How about we treat them like the other subsets of religious minorities we already have? Allow them the freedom everyone has to say what we have to do, and prosecute them under existing law when if try to force people to comply.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You might want to read my post again, because you clearly don't get my point.

I did, but I guess you didn't get mine. Some regimes have tried imprisoning people who were associated with crimes committed by others, but they wouldn't generally be considered 'free' democratic regimes.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Oh, and the people forcing women to wear the burka (physically or psychologically through indoctrination) they are hurting others, so why not stop them?

We should certainly stop them. Removing the temptation by putting the object of their attacks in prison seems a rather unjust way of doing so though.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Your poor cheese analogy ignores the part of my post which says "within the confines of what is socially acceptable". It is socially acceptable to eat cheese, or to not eat cheese, hence no issue about criminalisation. It is not socially acceptable to hit your wife, hence it is criminalised, despite it being a part of some other cultures to do so.

I'm very disappointed you found my analogy poor. It is socially acceptable to be in a religion, or not in a religion, hence no issue about criminalisation, It is not socially acceptable to act in accordance with certain aspects of some religions, hence it is criminalised, despite some people believing it's part of other cultures. It doesn't follow that criminalisation should necessarily be extended to other aspects of those religions or cultures.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My point is not about equating it in terms of outcome. My point is that we are perfectly happy to ban certain religiously or cultural inspired acts despite otherwise trying to be multicultural. There is no reason why we shouldn't, at the very least, approach the burka in the same way. Whether you do support the burka ban or not, the culture behind it is irrelevant.

Neither the act nor the outcome are equatable, and we don't criminalise acts like assault because they are culturally or religiously inspired; we criminalise them because they harm others. We should certainly approach the burka the same way; if my choosing to wear a burka hurts no one else, I should be free to do so.
And before anyone jumps on it; being emotionally hurt by seeing a woman who is oppressed in your opinion by wearing a burka thankfully falls well short of most western democracies criteria for criminal assault.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because the bride and widow wear veils only temporarily and without the fear of social or divine retribution. The burka is a permanent public feature for the women raised to "choose" it and comes with a massive amount of psychological baggage.

So if they chose to only wear it occasionally it would be fine?

Fear of social retribution is something society has to answer for; if our society is going to exact retribution on a woman for wearing a burka (like for instance sending her to prison?) we need to do something about that.

Fear of divine retribution is between the creator and the created, I'm pretty sure the state has no business legislating around gods judgement.

Perhaps the burka has psychological baggage for those 'raised to choose it', I haven't seen any studies to show that, but I suspect the baggage relates more to the society they live in than the garments they wear. But those that convert to Islam and choose the Burka as a result of their study I suspect garner more self satisfaction than baggage.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Also, wearing a tent because you perceive yourself as so attractive as to drive men wild just by a fleeting glance is the opposite of modest.

How much opinion can you fit into one sentence? Deriding the burka as a tent is pretty low, as well as untrue. Ascribing a logic to wearing it that you know is untrue having read this thread gets even lower. Then forcing your own interpretation on what is modest for someone from a different background really leaves me wondering; why rewrite the position you're arguing against? Are you that unsure of your own position?

Banbh

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

Deriding the burka as a tent is pretty low,

Yet you say 'throwing women in prison' when nobody advocates this.
Would bin-liner or tarpolin be okay?

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

Yet you say 'throwing women in prison' when nobody advocates this.
Would bin-liner or tarpolin be okay?

Hmm, what penalty are you advocating for such avant garde fashionistas then? Should it be a sliding scale of fines based on how much flesh is visible?

Banbh

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

It is not I who is obsessed with exposed flesh. It is those who say that covering women in tents is for their modesty. Men of this cult are free to flaunt their immodest arms, ankles and even faces without punishment.
Try wearing a tent for a day and see if it is a punishment or a happy protection of your modesty.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

It is not I who is obsessed with exposed flesh. It is those who say that covering women in tents is for their modesty. Men of this cult are free to flaunt their immodest arms, ankles and even faces without punishment.
Try wearing a tent for a day and see if it is a punishment or a happy protection of your modesty.

Interesting. I wonder, why do you think men of this cults arms ankles and faces are immodest? And why should they be punished for exposing them? Doesn't that run contrary to your desire to punish them for not exposing them?

The thing is, I can wear a tent for a day if I want to... but you're proposing to punish me for it. I don't see why you should get to punish me for wearing a tent if I want.

Banbh

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

You are clearly not following what I say. In fact, you are reversing it.

I don't think the men are being immodest - I was pointing out the contradiction in them saying that covering women is for modesty when they don't cover themselves.

I am not proposing punishing you, though your deliberate misrepresentation of nearly everything I say makes it tempting.

I now suspect that you are just amusing yourself.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

I don't think the men are being immodest

But you said:

Banbh wrote: »

Men of this cult are free to flaunt their immodest arms, ankles and even faces without punishment.

Since they obviously don't think it's immodest, and you say you don't, who does?

Banbh wrote: »

I am not proposing punishing you, though your deliberate misrepresentation of nearly everything I say makes it tempting.

You're advocating the criminalisation of people covering their faces. If it's it a criminal offense, it will be punishable. If I cover my face, I will be punished. How are you not proposing punishing me?

Sulla Felix

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

You are clearly not following what I say. In fact, you are reversing it.

I don't think the men are being immodest - I was pointing out the contradiction in them saying that covering women is for modesty when they don't cover themselves.

I am not proposing punishing you, though your deliberate misrepresentation of nearly everything I say makes it tempting.

I now suspect that you are just amusing yourself.

Just to play devils advocate here, it's not unheard of in the West to have divergent standards of immodesty, backed by law, for the different genders. Man walking down the street bare from the waist up, distasteful perhaps but acceptable. Woman doing the same is likely to attract the attention of the police.

Mark Hamill

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

Absolam wrote: »

How about we treat them like the other subsets of religious minorities we already have? Allow them the freedom everyone has to say what we have to do, and prosecute them under existing law when if try to force people to comply.

So you agree then that we should use the law against such subsets of religious minorities when they try and dictate that women can only wear one specific visible item of clothing in public?

Absolam wrote: »

I did, but I guess you didn't get mine. Some regimes have tried imprisoning people who were associated with crimes committed by others, but they wouldn't generally be considered 'free' democratic regimes.

We should certainly stop them. Removing the temptation by putting the object of their attacks in prison seems a rather unjust way of doing so though.

The women will only be imprisoned if they resist being helped, because they then become part of the problem.

Absolam wrote: »

I'm very disappointed you found my analogy poor. It is socially acceptable to be in a religion, or not in a religion, hence no issue about criminalisation, It is not socially acceptable to act in accordance with certain aspects of some religions, hence it is criminalised, despite some people believing it's part of other cultures. It doesn't follow that criminalisation should necessarily be extended to other aspects of those religions or cultures.

It's almost as if you should just assess peoples acts in isolation from the whether or not they are religiously or culturally inspired. Which was my point, if you were paying attention.

Absolam wrote: »

We should certainly approach the burka the same way; if my choosing to wear a burka hurts no one else, I should be free to do so.

The burka does hurt everyone else. It is not just a piece of clothing you wear, it is a signal, a piece of propaganda, telling the rest of the world that women should not even be seen, never mind heard.

Absolam wrote: »

So if they chose to only wear it occasionally it would be fine?

I never considered this, but maybe it would. The burka is not just a piece of clothing, its an entire, absolutist, mentality concerning women being relegated to being the private the property of men. If the mentality changed, so that women only wore it irregularly, then the argument that it was something they do of their own free will would strengthen.

Absolam wrote: »

Fear of social retribution is something society has to answer for; if our society is going to exact retribution on a woman for wearing a burka (like for instance sending her to prison?) we need to do something about that.

vFear of divine retribution is between the creator and the created, I'm pretty sure the state has no business legislating around gods judgement.

You miss my point, again. The social and divine retribution is threatened on the burka-wearing women for not wearing the burka, that's part of how they are indoctrinated. Banning the burka is an answer for these retributions.

Absolam wrote: »

How much opinion can you fit into one sentence? Deriding the burka as a tent is pretty low, as well as untrue. Ascribing a logic to wearing it that you know is untrue having read this thread gets even lower. Then forcing your own interpretation on what is modest for someone from a different background really leaves me wondering; why rewrite the position you're arguing against? Are you that unsure of your own position?

The argument behind the burka is to satisfy the requirement of modesty in Islam:

Quran 33:58&#8211 wrote: »

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their khimār over their breasts and not display their beauty except to their husband, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments.

The expressed idea is to not draw sexual attention of men who might be interested in having sex with you (hence husbands, relatives and children are ok). You might want to educate yourself and Islam and the burka before you start accusing others of not telling the truth :rolleyes:.
And yes, the burka is a tent, it's and upside down bivouac.

Mark Hamill

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

Absolam wrote: »

Since they obviously don't think it's immodest, and you say you don't, who does?

They do themselves, hence they have their women cover them up.

Absolam wrote: »

You're advocating the criminalisation of people covering their faces. If it's it a criminal offense, it will be punishable. If I cover my face, I will be punished. How are you not proposing punishing me?

Because of why you are covering your face. It is a crime to assault someone in the street, it is not a crime to have a boxing match in a ring.

Frank Lee Midere

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Just to play devils advocate here, it's not unheard of in the West to have divergent standards of immodesty, backed by law, for the different genders. Man walking down the street bare from the waist up, distasteful perhaps but acceptable. Woman doing the same is likely to attract the attention of the police.

Well it actually makes the argument of people who say "I can wear what I want waking down the street" moot. You can't wear nothing. You can't wear very little. So this isn't new.

Of course one is a law against modesty, the other a law against over modesty. But we have such laws.

Moving on a bit I wonder were it common for Christian sects to cover their faces would there be such support. Or were it a secular fad? I don't think there would be that much of an outcry if the Klu Klux Klan were banned from wearing their outfits, in particular the hood, given that the hood hides facial features and I am certain that the hood couldn't be worn in court.

A hoods a hood.

EDIT:

The debate on whether the KKK can wear hoods is ongoing.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/1999/summer/unmasking-the-klan

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you agree then that we should use the law against such subsets of religious minorities when they try and dictate that women can only wear one specific visible item of clothing in public?

Of course not; using the law against religious minorities is unconscionable. I agree that individuals who assault other individuals should be subject to the full force of the law.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The women will only be imprisoned if they resist being helped, because they then become part of the problem.

This is a new twist; instead of imprisoning women who cover their faces you're now suggesting we only imprison those who cover their faces and refuse help? What exactly are you suggesting they be offered help with? And what kind of 'help' are we talking about here? Whilst we're at it, what 'problem' are they becoming part of by refusing 'help'?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It's almost as if you should just assess peoples acts in isolation from the whether or not they are religiously or culturally inspired. Which was my point, if you were paying attention.

Right. So in that case, ignoring the religious or cultural inspiration, assessing the act of wearing the clothing alone, you can't really say it's a signal or piece of propaganda, can you? Yet...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The burka does hurt everyone else. It is not just a piece of clothing you wear, it is a signal, a piece of propaganda, telling the rest of the world that women should not even be seen, never mind heard.

So you'll have no problem linking to the people put in hospital as a result of someone else wearing a burka? As for the rest, well.... see above.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I never considered this, but maybe it would. The burka is not just a piece of clothing, its an entire, absolutist, mentality concerning women being relegated to being the private the property of men. If the mentality changed, so that women only wore it irregularly, then the argument that it was something they do of their own free will would strengthen.

Actually, the burka is just a piece of clothing. A very specific, purposeful piece of clothing, like a firefighters helmet, or an exotic dancers nipple tassles. The connotations you're ascribing are entirely your own; other people ascribe other connotations based on their own opinions. Prejudice free, say, if you pull someone from the depths of an amazonian jungle and ask them to assess the woman wearing a burka in front of them, they would struggle to independantly arrive at the conclusion that what they are seeing represents an entire, absolutist, mentality concerning women being relegated to being the private the property of men. The context you're ascribing is determined by your cultural/religious inspiration, which is not assessing the act itself in isolation.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You miss my point, again. The social and divine retribution is threatened on the burka-wearing women for not wearing the burka, that's part of how they are indoctrinated. Banning the burka is an answer for these retributions.

No I got the point. But there is no social retribution threatened for women in Ireland other than the one you're proposing, and if they believe god will punish them for not wearing a burka, then you banning them from wearing it just means god will punish them for what you did. Banning the burka is not an answer for either retribution; it is the agent of both.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The argument behind the burka is to satisfy the requirement of modesty in Islam:
Originally Posted by Quran 33:58–59 And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their khimār over their breasts and not display their beauty except to their husband, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments.
The expressed idea is to not draw sexual attention of men who might be interested in having sex with you (hence husbands, relatives and children are ok). You might want to educate yourself and Islam and the burka before you start accusing others of not telling the truth :rolleyes:

I am obviously a far poorer scholar, and indeed, reader, than I previously thought. I'd very much appreciate if you would highlight in the passage you've chosen, where it says women "perceive themselves as so attractive as to drive men wild just by a fleeting glance". Even with two fingers, rather than my customary one, I can't seem to find it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And yes, the burka is a tent, it's and upside down bivouac.

Rather than argue the point, I refer you to any dictionary, in both cases. You may consider it a tent-like garment, but that does not make it either a tent or a bivouac.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They do themselves, hence they have their women cover them up.

But they don't themselves; hence they don't cover themselves.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because of why you are covering your face. It is a crime to assault someone in the street, it is not a crime to have a boxing match in a ring.

I didn't say why are you you proposing punishing me, I said how are you not proposing punishing me. But if you're proposing to punish me for my (assumed) intentions, rather than my actions, that's a whole new discussion!

Mark Hamill

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

Absolam wrote: »

Of course not; using the law against religious minorities is unconscionable. I agree that individuals who assault other individuals should be subject to the full force of the law.

So if an individual assaults someone, use the law, but if a group of individuals assaults others, then we can't?

Absolam wrote: »

This is a new twist; instead of imprisoning women who cover their faces you're now suggesting we only imprison those who cover their faces and refuse help? What exactly are you suggesting they be offered help with? And what kind of 'help' are we talking about here? Whilst we're at it, what 'problem' are they becoming part of by refusing 'help'?

The problem of the burka, we should help them be free of it, if you don't get that at this stage in the thread we are going to have serious problems going any further.

Absolam wrote: »

Right. So in that case, ignoring the religious or cultural inspiration, assessing the act of wearing the clothing alone, you can't really say it's a signal or piece of propaganda, can you? Yet...

You ignore the inspiration as default justification for the act, not as the source. I.e. you can't just say "thats my culture/religion" as if that makes it ok. You need to go into the logic and outcomes of the act to assess it.

Absolam wrote: »

So you'll have no problem linking to the people put in hospital as a result of someone else wearing a burka? As for the rest, well.... see above.

Are you under the impression that biggotry only hurts the people being oppressed? Is racism not bad for all society, not just black people?

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, the burka is just a piece of clothing.

No, its not, this has been debunked a multitude of times in this thread, don't be so disingenuous. The burka is more than a piece of clothing, as can be shown from the simple fact that only people from a small subset of one religion wear it at all. If it was only a piece of clothing, then it wouldn't only be associated and found within a particular tiny minority.

Absolam wrote: »

No I got the point. But there is no social retribution threatened for women in Ireland other than the one you're proposing, and if they believe god will punish them for not wearing a burka, then you banning them from wearing it just means god will punish them for what you did. Banning the burka is not an answer for either retribution; it is the agent of both.

You think these women won't recieve any social retribution from their own minority in our society? And the point about god is irrelevant, the same women believe their men are justified by god to beat them, but we don't allow that.

Absolam wrote: »

I am obviously a far poorer scholar,

You are also taking the piss, I've explained my point perfectly clear.

Absolam wrote: »

Rather than argue the point, I refer you to any dictionary, in both cases. You may consider it a tent-like garment, but that does not make it either a tent or a bivouac.

In what way is not a tent?

Absolam wrote: »

But they don't themselves; hence they don't cover themselves.

That just makes them hypocrites (and misogynists).

Absolam wrote: »

I didn't say why are you you proposing punishing me, I said how are you not proposing punishing me

That is the same question, in terms of the asnwer you looking for. The banning of the burka is justified because of why the burka is used, thats why the people who support it don't also support a ban on halloween masks and why you wouldn't be punished for just covering your face.

You are clearly taking the piss in this debate, looking for anything and everything to disagree with, just for the sake of it. My patience wears thin.