Burka ban

Mark Hamill

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

She may believe what she is saying, but so do many battered women who say their husbands really love them, it was a one time thing, they deserved it really. Treat someone like a dog long enough and eventually they will bark.

Okay, so micro level, you do doubt her ability to make that decision herself? She responds to that herself in the video, I mention it here.

Macro, do you doubt the existence of even one single person that does have the ability to make that decision themselves and does in fact choose to wear a hijab/burka?

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you doubt the sincerity of the woman in the video? She does mention several times that she totally and utterly agrees with the idea that forcibly 'requiring' people to wear the burka is oppressive and controlling. I agree wholeheartedly.

However, she tells us that she herself has made the decision herself to wear the hijab. Do you doubt her ability to make that decision?

That's the nub here for me.

Do you doubt the sincerity of a suicide bomber?

I take your point, and don't for a moment doubt that there are many women that freely choose to wear the burka, but would question whether there is an element of religious zeal involved in the decision to do so. Not that there is anything wrong even with that per se, but if the women involved also realise and accept that the same garment is used as a means of oppression of women in other contexts, voluntarily wearing a burka seems like a questionable choice. The hijab is no quite the same issue, i.e. it doesn't cover up identity or in more extreme cases, signs of physical abuse.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Do you doubt the sincerity of a suicide bomber?

I take your point, and don't for a moment doubt that there are many women that freely choose to wear the burka, but would question whether there is an element of religious zeal involved in the decision to do so. Not that there is anything wrong even with that per se, but if the women involved also realise and accept that the same garment is used as a means of oppression of women in other contexts, voluntarily wearing a burka seems like a questionable choice. The hijab is no quite the same issue, i.e. it doesn't cover up identity or in more extreme cases, signs of physical abuse.

So what? I wore green trousers to work one day. Also a questionable choice. I met a woman in Scotland in a pair of high heels in the snow, extremely questionable choice.

Recall freedom of expression, some people choose to have Nazi tattoos adorn their bodies, also imo an extraordinarily questionable choice, but it is their choice to make, not mine for them.

We don't and should not ban people from making personal choices that to any of us appear to be 'questionable'.

'Questionability' isn't a test that we can apply to anything really.

If people believe that others wearing a burka impacts upon their lives, then it is up to them to prove it. For me, removing the right to freedom of expression (by banning someone from being able to make the personal choice to wear a particular garment) requires extraordinary evidence which I've not seen yet.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

If people believe that others wearing a burka impacts upon their lives, then it is up to them to prove it. For me, removing the right to freedom of expression (by banning someone from being able to make the personal choice to wear a particular garment) requires extraordinary evidence which I've not seen yet.

I tend to be swayed by the writing of Fadala Amara and others which links being forced to wear burqas in French ghettos with cover up of systematic and violent abuse, rape, and even murder. I don't doubt the sincerity of her claims, and would consider it in balance rather more important than a small infringement of freedom of expression.

Again, the hijab and burqa are not the same thing. If Hanna Yusuf had made the same arguments wearing a burqa in the previous video do you think it would have affected the message much?

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

I tend to be swayed by the writing of Fadala Amara and others which links being forced to wear burqas in French ghettos with cover up of systematic and violent abuse, rape, and even murder. I don't doubt the sincerity of her claims, and would consider it in balance rather more important than a small infringement of freedom of expression.

Again, the hijab and burqa are not the same thing. If Hanna Yusuf had made the same arguments wearing a burqa in the previous video do you think it would have affected the message much?

Honestly, the item of clothing is utterly irrelevant to my point. We could discuss the colanders on the heads of pastafarians if we wanted to take the thread off topic.

The point I am making is simple. I don't believe that we should attempt to remove the freedom of expression and ability to make the choice to wear anything that someone wants to from anyone's rights (including a Burka) unless a strong case can be made that by wearing one you are impacting upon another's rights.

Any item of clothing at all fits in there too.

In the past children were beaten by their parents with belts across the backs, knowing that their clothing would cover the marks. Should we also ban T-Shirts and all other clothing that covers the back in order to stop this? Domestic violence sufferers have been known to cover up marks with make up, do we ban this too?

No, we prohibit the act of violence, and we police it.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

The point I am making is simple. I don't believe that we should attempt to remove the freedom of expression and ability to make the choice to wear anything that someone wants to from anyone's rights (including a Burka) unless a strong case can be made that by wearing one you are impacting upon another's rights.

I believe Amara et al are making just such a case in this instance, in that protecting one persons freedom of expression is placing another person at risk. Whether or not you think we should be allowed to conceal our identity in public, leaving a victim of oppression in a situation where they are coerced into concealing their identity in order to protect an aggressor is clearly not acceptable.

I'm religious and support the ban

Are balaclavas banned?

What about fancy dress at Halloween?

What about Comic Book conventions where people walk around in batman suits etc?

jackofalltrades

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

Deleted User wrote: »

Are balaclavas banned?

Yes

What about fancy dress at Halloween?

No

What about Comic Book conventions where people walk around in batman suits etc?

No

I'm religious and support the ban

Balaclavas are not banned. Surely if the worry was concealment of identity, we'd see them also being banned from public? As well as wearing a motorcycle helmet when not on a bike etc etc etc...

jackofalltrades

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

Deleted User wrote: »

Balaclavas are not banned.

If you want to wear one in public in France it's against the law, which is what I meant.
Which I'm assuming that's the context were talking about.

Mark Hamill

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

Deleted User wrote: »

Okay, so micro level, you do doubt her ability to make that decision herself? She responds to that herself in the video, I mention it here.

And my post here responds to that.

Deleted User wrote: »

Macro, do you doubt the existence of even one single person that does have the ability to make that decision themselves and does in fact choose to wear a hijab/burka?

Yes I do, again because of my earlier linked post.

NB: I only support banning the burqa and niqab, not hijab in general.

I'm religious and support the ban

Fair play for having the confidence to speak for millions.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

Are balaclavas banned?

What about fancy dress at Halloween?

What about Comic Book conventions where people walk around in batman suits etc?

Are there any well documented links between these garments and oppression and systematic abuse of a vulnerable group in our society? Would you think it was ok to walk around Belfast at the height of the troubles wearing a balaclava, or into a post office in rural Ireland?

The fact that you should be allowed do something as an expression of your personal freedom doesn't mean you ought to. Where that expression is a source of unreasonable hardship or worry to others, it seems reasonable to disallow the expression altogether.

Mark Hamill

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

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair play for having the confidence to speak for millions.

Do you have an actual response to my earlier post?

Mark Hamill

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you have an actual response to my earlier post?

Think this sums up pretty much

Deleted User wrote: »

Honestly, the item of clothing is utterly irrelevant to my point. We could discuss the colanders on the heads of pastafarians if we wanted to take the thread off topic.

The point I am making is simple. I don't believe that we should attempt to remove the freedom of expression and ability to make the choice to wear anything that someone wants to from anyone's rights (including a Burka) unless a strong case can be made that by wearing one you are impacting upon another's rights.

Any item of clothing at all fits in there too.

In the past children were beaten by their parents with belts across the backs, knowing that their clothing would cover the marks. Should we also ban T-Shirts and all other clothing that covers the back in order to stop this? Domestic violence sufferers have been known to cover up marks with make up, do we ban this too?

No, we prohibit the act of violence, and we police it.

Mark Hamill

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

Deleted User wrote: »

Think this sums up pretty much

The notion that the burka is some freely made expression that doesn't harm people is contradicted by my earlier post, and a point I've made for nearly this whole thread - the burka is not just a piece of clothing, it is inexorably tied to a whole culture of oppression and control. That's why the only women who "choose" to wear it are women living under said culture of oppression and control.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The notion that the burka is some freely made expression that doesn't harm people is contradicted by my earlier post, and a point I've made for nearly this whole thread - the burka is not just a piece of clothing, it is inexorably tied to a whole culture of oppression and control. That's why the only women who "choose" to wear it are women living under said culture of oppression and control.

So if a woman chooses to wear hijab, it automatically follows that she is living under a culture of oppression and control? There is no possibility that she is not, no point in considering her actual circumstances?

BlaasForRafa

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

Absolam wrote: »

So if a woman chooses to wear hijab, it automatically follows that she is living under a culture of oppression and control? There is no possibility that she is not, no point in considering her actual circumstances?

Of course there's a possibility....a slim possibility I'd suggest. Usually though there's an element of indoctrination and brainwashing going on.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Of course there's a possibility....a slim possibility I'd suggest. Usually though there's an element of indoctrination and brainwashing going on.

I have a problem with this line of argument, in that it assumes a knowledge of what goes on for the vast majority of Muslim women. I'm not sure that such information exists, or that the underlying study required to make such statements has been carried out. In the absence of this information, we can't make general quantitative statements that withstand any level of scrutiny. Better maybe to draw limited conclusions from the limited localised studies that have been done. Some studies suggest that some women wear the burqa by choice, others suggest that the burqa is used by men as a tool of oppression against women in their communities. While I reckon there are reasonable arguments on both sides, I don't see how anyone can reasonably use a freedom of expression argument against a ban that might help alleviate systematic oppression.

looksee

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

On the freedom of expression argument, can I freely express that I would really prefer not to have to deal with a covered face when I am trying to communicate with people? I would feel the same way if I had to have a conversation with someone wearing a motor cycle helmet - but generally people remove their helmets in conversation, similarly, anyone with any courtesy will remove sunglasses.

It isn't too big a deal here, but there are cities in the UK where you can easily find yourself completely surrounded by totally covered people. I find this a bit unnerving, they are free to express themselves by being covered, I am free to express myself by saying I do not like it. I have absolutely no issue with headscarves or any other form of dress provided the face is visible.

Mark Hamill

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

Absolam wrote: »

So if a woman chooses to wear hijab, it automatically follows that she is living under a culture of oppression and control? There is no possibility that she is not, no point in considering her actual circumstances?

The post you quoted deals with this very point.

Peregrinus

looksee wrote: »

On the freedom of expression argument, can I freely express that I would really prefer not to have to deal with a covered face when I am trying to communicate with people? I would feel the same way if I had to have a conversation with someone wearing a motor cycle helmet - but generally people remove their helmets in conversation, similarly, anyone with any courtesy will remove sunglasses.

It isn't too big a deal here, but there are cities in the UK where you can easily find yourself completely surrounded by totally covered people. I find this a bit unnerving, they are free to express themselves by being covered, I am free to express myself by saying I do not like it. I have absolutely no issue with headscarves or any other form of dress provided the face is visible.

You're certainly free to express your discomfort at "having to deal with a covered face". What you're not free to do is to require other people to act so as to remove your discomfort - your discomfort is your problem, not theirs.

People who don't like to see two men, or two women, holding hands or kissing can solve the problem by closing their eyes. People who don't like to converse with those wearing face coverings can solve the problem by not conversing with them, and by not putting themselves in situations where they are required to converse with them.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The post you quoted deals with this very point.

It certainly appears to infer your answer would be "Yes, if a woman chooses to wear hijab, it automatically follows that she is living under a culture of oppression and control and there is no possibility that she is not,so there is no point in considering her actual circumstances.".
But I asked so that you had the opportunity to say if this or is not your opinion, rather than inferring that is what you think from what you said.
Would you prefer your opinion be inferred, or that you should state it, given t he opportunity?

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

While I reckon there are reasonable arguments on both sides, I don't see how anyone can reasonably use a freedom of expression argument against a ban that might help alleviate systematic oppression.

How about; inhibiting one persons freedom of expression in order to (hopefully) alleviate the action of someone else oppressing someone is inherently unjust?
If we want to prevent someone from oppressing someone else, removing the means of the oppression simply takes the oppression of our sight, it doesn't prevent oppression. Acting against the oppressor by either punishing or habilitating them deals with the actual issue, rather than the appearance of the issue, with the added benefit of not interfering with someone elses freedom of expression.
Banning the burka at it's very best is simply removing the evidence of oppression that confronts us, backed by wishful thinking that if we can't see it it will go away.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

How about; inhibiting one persons freedom of expression in order to (hopefully) alleviate the action of someone else oppressing someone is inherently unjust?
If we want to prevent someone from oppressing someone else, removing the means of the oppression simply takes the oppression of our sight, it doesn't prevent oppression. Acting against the oppressor by either punishing or habilitating them deals with the actual issue, rather than the appearance of the issue, with the added benefit of not interfering with someone elses freedom of expression.
Banning the burka at it's very best is simply removing the evidence of oppression that confronts us, backed by wishful thinking that if we can't see it it will go away.

Pretty much the same argument the NRA use in America to defend the freedom to bear arms. Doesn't seem to have done much for their levels of gun crime.

silverharp

my own view of rights should stop at the point religious people get extra rights. If you need to show your face going into a bank then there should not be a religious exemption. Going after Islamic dress in particular to help women is petty and along the lines of not being able to buy a bottle of wine in a supermarket on a Sat morning.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're certainly free to express your discomfort at "having to deal with a covered face". What you're not free to do is to require other people to act so as to remove your discomfort - your discomfort is your problem, not theirs.

People who don't like to see two men, or two women, holding hands or kissing can solve the problem by closing their eyes. People who don't like to converse with those wearing face coverings can solve the problem by not conversing with them, and by not putting themselves in situations where they are required to converse with them.

Not the same at all. Sometimes we conduct business by phone or perhaps by email, sometimes we need to meet face to face. If we are doing business by meeting someone with a covered face, there is an unfair imbalance, as part of the communication includes reading and understanding facial expression. If anonymity and ambiguity of expression is afforded to one party but not the other we do not have a fair and balanced situation. Many customers of many businesses would have these sentiments, and this could unduly affect the business. As such it seems reasonable to demand certain dress codes from the people you employ, as their task while in your employ is to serve your business interests. Freedom of expression of how you dress is regularly limited in the workplace and rightly so.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Pretty much the same argument the NRA use in America to defend the freedom to bear arms. Doesn't seem to have done much for their levels of gun crime.

Is it? The NRAs (ostensible) reasoning is that keeping their guns is necessary to prevent other people with guns (their own government, usually) potentially oppressing them.
No one is suggesting that having a burka prevents other people with burkas oppressing you, or even that people in burkas will oppress other people.

The reason put forward for banning the burka is that it will prevent non burka wearing people oppressing non burka wearing people by forcing them to wear burkas. I suspect the NRA would have a good old laugh if it was suggested that America should ban guns in order to prevent non gun owners oppressing other non gun owners by forcing them to own guns.

Sorry.. I just can't see the similarity in the argument. That's not a rhetorical ploy; can you walk me through where you see the similarities in the two objections to legal restriction?

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Not the same at all. Sometimes we conduct business by phone or perhaps by email, sometimes we need to meet face to face. If we are doing business by meeting someone with a covered face, there is an unfair imbalance, as part of the communication includes reading and understanding facial expression. If anonymity and ambiguity of expression is afforded to one party but not the other we do not have a fair and balanced situation. Many customers of many businesses would have these sentiments, and this could unduly affect the business. As such it seems reasonable to demand certain dress codes from the people you employ, as their task while in your employ is to serve your business interests. Freedom of expression of how you dress is regularly limited in the workplace and rightly so.

I take your point. On the other hand, you have no general right to require people to do business with you on terms that you like, but they don't. If you can't agree on terms that suit you both, then you won't do business. So for example if the person behind the counter offering to sell you fruit and veg has her face covered and you are uncomfortable with this, your choice is (a) swallow your discomfort and buy the fruit and veg, or (b) find another grocer. You don't have option (c), insist that she uncover her face and then sell you the carrots.

An employer can impose dress codes that infringe on freedom of expression if they are reasonably related to the requirements of the business, so if the grocery owner finds that customers are deterred from dealing with a salesperson whose face is covered, he can decline to employ someone in that position unless they are willing to uncover their face. That's already the law. That's not a "burka ban" of the kind being discussed in this thread, I think.

Likewise with silverharp's case of people entering a bank. There's no law that says you have to uncover your face entering a bank; it's up to the banks to impose that as a condition of entry if they want to. In making a decision, the banks will try to balance (a) security considerations against (b) the inconvenience or distress felt by customers and potential customers required to uncover their faces. It's not impossible that a bank would conclude that motorcyle riders are unbothered by being asked to remove their helmets, but that customers who cover their faces for religious, cultural or cosmetic reasons would be quite seriously bothered, and according make the demand of one group and not the other. But, even if they applied the requirement to everyone who came in the door, that wouldn't be a "burka ban"; it would be a matter of the terms on which the bank would be willing to do business.

looksee

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

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're certainly free to express your discomfort at "having to deal with a covered face". What you're not free to do is to require other people to act so as to remove your discomfort - your discomfort is your problem, not theirs.

So likewise, their discomfort at being uncovered is their problem, not mine? Who's discomfort wins?

People who don't like to see two men, or two women, holding hands or kissing can solve the problem by closing their eyes. People who don't like to converse with those wearing face coverings can solve the problem by not conversing with them, and by not putting themselves in situations where they are required to converse with them.

How about not putting themselves in a situation (country) where they are socially required to show their face?