Burka ban

Sour Lemonz

I'm religious and support the ban

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

There is no reason on religious symbolism for discrimination, bullying or violence if all are treated the same way in a neutral stance.

Come again?

Kev W

I'm religious and support the ban

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, if you have a rule which says that somebody in a school may not wear a religious symbol, that seems fairly clearly to infringe principles of toleration, diversity and respect for personal autonomy.

Ah, here's where the confusion comes from and it turns out it's my fault. I was speaking of removing religious symbols and teaching from schools, taking crucifixes out of classrooms etc. Of course if a person wishes to wear a religious symbol they should have the right, wherever they happen to be.

Mark Hamill

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

Absolam wrote: »

So if I just question your statement (for instance, by asking if, based on the statement you put forward, a woman chooses to wear hijab, does it automatically follow that she is living under a culture of oppression and control? If so, is there is no possibility that she is not, is there no point in considering her actual circumstances to determine if it is the case that she is living under a culture of oppression and control?) can we continue the discussion?

My statement already answers this: "the only women who "choose" to wear it are women living under said culture of oppression and control". At the very least you are just asking me to repeat myself, if you keep doing that then no, we can't continue the discussion.

Mark Hamill

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

Peregrinus wrote: »

What if our rules include notions like tolerance, diversity and the right of a woman to make decisions about her own body?

Then the burka and it's inherently associated culture of intolerance, enforced-conformity and women-having-less-rights-than-men is contradictory to our rules.

Mark Hamill

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then the burka and it's inherently associated culture of intolerance, enforced-conformity and women-having-less-rights-than-men is contradictory to our rules.

Is everything associated with Islam tainted in the same way?

Mark Hamill

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

Deleted User wrote: »

Is everything associated with Islam tainted in the same way?

While Islam in general is fairly intollerant and oppressive, I'm only taking here about the sects which require the burka and niqab.

Mark Hamill

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

While Islam in general is fairly intollerant and oppressive, I'm only taking here about the sects which require the burka and niqab.

And is everything associated with them tainted?

jackofalltrades

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

Peregrinus wrote: »

What if our rules include notions like tolerance, diversity and the right of a woman to make decisions about her own body?

I think you're veering into tolerance of intolerance there though.
I'd consider being able to see someone's body language, especially their facial expressions as an absolute minimum for regular social interaction.
Loosing this ability would make communication much more difficult.
For certain women to voluntarily choose an item of clothing that's completely at odds with our cultural norms in incredibly intolerant.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. We're reinforcing the view that "the burqa is a tool used to subjugate women". Maybe we should teach our children that if they want to know the purpose and signficance of a burqa, they should talk to someone who wears one.

You're right, you could have a talk where women who wear one voluntarily describe their experiences.
But in the interest of giving a complete picture, students should also hear stories from women who were forced to wear it.
You could also show them a video or two of how women who are forced to wear Burqas are treated in these countries.

jackofalltrades

I'm religious and support the ban

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I think you're veering into tolerance of intolerance there though.
I'd consider being able to see someone's body language, especially their facial expressions as an absolute minimum for regular social interaction.
Loosing this ability would make communication much more difficult.
For certain women to voluntarily choose an item of clothing that's completely at odds with our cultural norms in incredibly intolerant.

You're right, you could have a talk where women who wear one voluntarily describe their experiences.
But in the interest of giving a complete picture, students should also hear stories from women who were forced to wear it.
You could also show them a video or two of how women who are forced to wear Burqas are treated in these countries.

I suppose by extension that means that Rory O'Neil is incredibly intolerant? A man donning a dress is after all incredibly intolerant of our cultural norms, where men don't wear make up or dresses.

I accept that's not quite what you meant, but are we to believe that historical social norms are rigid and fixed and so anyone who operates outside of those bounds is 'incredibly intolerant'?

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. We're reinforcing the view that "the burqa is a tool used to subjugate women". Maybe we should teach our children that if they want to know the purpose and signficance of a burqa, they should talk to someone who wears one.

OMG! Kids might ask questions! How can we possibly avert this calamity?

If they ask those questions, smacl, they should be given answers. That's how schools are supposed to work.

Even if they don't see burqas, they might still ask these subversive questions. They might, for example, ask why western notions of propriety and modesty differ as between men and women - why women have to cover their breasts, for example, in contexts where men do not, or why women can wear skirts in contexts where men can't

I've linked articles that describe women who like wearing burqas and claim to to so of their own volition, and others that describe systematic abuse of women forced to wear burqas. Both seem reasonable to me, and I think both are largely true. I suspect if a child were to talk to the former, they would get one point of view but I rather doubt they'd get much opportunity to talk to the latter, who from what I understand are rather restricted in terms of their freedom to communicate. Do you suggest that works of the likes of Fadala Amara are fabrication, or in any other way unreliable to the extent that they can be dismissed? Perhaps the children could take a field trip to some of the French ghettos, where according to a Telegraph article last year

the populations of many of these places have become hostages to virulent strains of radicalism. Women who refuse to wear the hijab, and, increasingly, the burka, are intimidated and brutalised by gangs whose ideas about female emancipation are on an exact par with those of the Taliban

OYG Kids of course should ask questions, and by doing so they'll often find more than one answer. This debate includes more than one valid point of view, so while freedom of expression is important, Amara's point I believe is equally so.

This, as Mme Amara painstakingly tries to explain, is the problem with all those charming liberal pieties about allowing women to choose how they wish to dress. Large numbers of the women who wear the burka – whether in France, Britain or anywhere else – don’t have a choice.

I'm also very cynical of arguments from both sides, so when I see something like the quote below;

Whereas you're perfectly fine with her being told not only that she may not wear a scarf, but that if she does she is exposed to criminal prosecution? And that this coercion will apply to her throughout her life?

i wonder is there actually a subtext where those those of a strong religious background actually see the issue more as an opportunity to take a stance against secular values when they come into conflict with religious ones? The Catholic church after all hardly has the best of records when it comes to gender equality and the emancipation of women.

jackofalltrades

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

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose by extension that means that Rory O'Neil is incredibly intolerant? A man donning a dress is after all incredibly intolerant of our cultural norms, where men don't wear make up or dresses.

Someone putting on a different persona is well within our cultural norms.

I accept that's not quite what you meant, but are we to believe that historical social norms are rigid and fixed and so anyone who operates outside of those bounds is 'incredibly intolerant'?

When you willing choose to behave in a way that shows no respect to the culture, that by and large you choose to be a part of, then I think incredibly intolerant is the right word.
I think there's some social norms that are flexible and can change and some that aren't, or if they do will lead to a marked negative change in society.
Cross-dressing is an example of something that wasn't the norm but is on the way towards being accepted.
Accepting this is good for the individual without having a negative effect on society.

My view is that accepting the Niqab/Burqa is possibly good for the individual and definitely bad for society.
It's the exact opposite of people trying to integrate into society, and creates a divide between cultures.
Would you tolerate people who shunned manners and common courtesy for example?

KingBrian2

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My statement already answers this: "the only women who "choose" to wear it are women living under said culture of oppression and control". At the very least you are just asking me to repeat myself, if you keep doing that then no, we can't continue the discussion.

Many Muslims wear the Burka as an expression of their culture just like Christians, Rabbi Jews and the Atheistic Goths other wise we would all be wearing the same garbs.

looksee

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

I don't care why anyone wears a burka, whether for religious, social, cultural or whatever reasons. I also don't care if they wear everything except the face veil. I also have no issue with men in skirts (though their knees are not usually able for it), saris, kitenges, kippahs, or indeed any other garment or lack of.

What I do object to is having to talk to an expanse of black in a society where courtesy requires that the face should be visible. If I go to somewhere where this is not a societal requirement, that's fine, but in this (western European) society it is normal courteous behaviour to make eye contact and be able to see each other's expression.

Mark Hamill

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

Deleted User wrote: »

And is everything associated with them tainted?

Do you mean everything associated with those specific sects? Then the answer is yes.

Mark Hamill

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

KingBrian2 wrote: »

other wise we would all be wearing the same garbs.

So?

jackofalltrades

I'm religious and support the ban

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Someone putting on a different persona is well within our cultural norms.

When you willing choose to behave in a way that shows no respect to the culture, that by and large you choose to be a part of, then I think incredibly intolerant is the right word.
I think there's some social norms that are flexible and can change and some that aren't, or if they do will lead to a marked negative change in society.
Cross-dressing is an example of something that wasn't the norm but is on the way towards being accepted.
Accepting this is good for the individual without having a negative effect on society.

Do tell how it became normalised.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

My view is that accepting the Niqab/Burqa is possibly good for the individual and definitely bad for society.
It's the exact opposite of people trying to integrate into society, and creates a divide between cultures.
Would you tolerate people who shunned manners and common courtesy for example?

I certainly wouldn't have them face fines or sanction.

Wanting to spend time with someone is patently different from limiting their freedoms.

Brian Shanahan

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

Jjiipp79 wrote: »

It should be banned world wide apart from the cultures it's accepted in.

Our way, out rules........

It should be banned full stop. The only reason for the imposition of wearing burqas is the misogynistic dehumanisation of women.

It is a symbol that they are nothing more than property, either of their tribe, family or husband.

KingBrian2

I'm religious and support the ban

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It should be banned full stop. The only reason for the imposition of wearing burqas is the misogynistic dehumanisation of women.

It is a symbol that they are nothing more than property, either of their tribe, family or husband.

People are not permitted to dress in Nazi uniforms yet many stag partiers still do. The KKK is allowed protest in America wearing their offensive costumes. The burqa is no worse as it is a cultural dress. I don't feel they should wear them in all circumstances like in school, going to see the doctor or taking a trip on a plane but let them wear it if they want it.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

KingBrian2 wrote: »

People are not permitted to dress in Nazi uniforms yet many stag partiers still do. The KKK is allowed protest in America wearing their offensive costumes. The burqa is no worse as it is a cultural dress. I don't feel they should wear them in all circumstances like in school, going to see the doctor or taking a trip on a plane but let them wear it if they want it.

Just at stonings and beheadings then? Not sure I'd be too happy about KKK types walking around the neighbourhood in uniform either, even if there was a good ol' fashioned traditional lynching going on. :rolleyes:

jackofalltrades

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

Deleted User wrote: »

Do tell how it became normalised.

By accepting this it is good for the individual without having a negative effect on society.

jackofalltrades

I'm religious and support the ban

jackofalltrades wrote: »

By accepting this it is good for the individual without having a negative effect on society.

That's an interesting interpretation. You don't think that it was drag queens being in the public domain that normalised cross dressing to the extent that it wasn't an affront to our cultural norms anymore?

The de-stigmatisation of the alternative culture surely had some effect on normalisation?

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My statement already answers this: "the only women who "choose" to wear it are women living under said culture of oppression and control". At the very least you are just asking me to repeat myself, if you keep doing that then no, we can't continue the discussion.

I'm not asking you to repeat yourself unless you actually said yes I believe this is true, or no I do not believe this is true, and I missed it? If you don't want to answer the question that's fine too, but pretending you have is a bit disingenuous...

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It should be banned full stop. The only reason for the imposition of wearing burqas is the misogynistic dehumanisation of women. It is a symbol that they are nothing more than property, either of their tribe, family or husband.

Nobody seems to be suggesting that we should support the imposition of wearing burkas though; it's the support for imposition that's being objected to. Currently the imposition of non-wearing of burkas.

Both impositions are to my mind dehumanising, and there's good cause to legislate against the imposers, rather than those imposed upon.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Apologies for quoting across thread boundaries, but I thought this was quite relevant;

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ultimately, in a democracy, I think any particular moral rule can be imposed only if there is a consensus to accept its imposition. The reason or reasons why there is a consensus actually don't matter. It's the proposition itself that needs to be evaluated, not other people's reasons for holding it.

While I agree with the the above sentiment from a pragmatic standpoint, and the subsequent telegraph article stating that 'France’s burka ban is a victory for tolerance', I think the reasons remain important.

What it does illustrate is that what constitutes acceptable moral behaviour that gets codified into law will vary from one society to the next based on consensus of opinion. Thus the French burqa ban seems right for France based on their culture, needs and experience. As and when reasons change, so should legislation be revised.

Absolam

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Apologies for quoting across thread boundaries, but I thought this was quite relevant;
While I agree with the the above sentiment from a pragmatic standpoint, and the subsequent telegraph article stating that 'France’s burka ban is a victory for tolerance', I think the reasons remain important.
What it does illustrate is that what constitutes acceptable moral behaviour that gets codified into law will vary from one society to the next based on consensus of opinion. Thus the French burqa ban seems right for France based on their culture, needs and experience. As and when reasons change, so should legislation be revised.

I'd (reluctantly in this case) agree that it is entirely up to the French to decide what is moral and legal in their country, just as it is for the Irish to decide what is moral and legal in our country (hence the above argument is relevant to the abortion thread as well). I would have hoped that if such draconian legislation were put to the freedom loving French in a referendum they would have voted it down, but I do recall being dismayed to hear that a very large proportion of the French public supported the legislation.
I am still convinced that the ban does nothing to increase tolerance, in fact I don't believe banning anything ever increases tolerance.

It hasn't stopped us debating whether it is something that ought to have been done or not though, absent the French peoples entitlement to do it regardless

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

I am still convinced that the ban does nothing to increase tolerance, in fact I don't believe banning anything ever increases tolerance.

In many ways, I'm not either. What I do think it will achieve over time is reduced stratification between ghettoised Muslim communities, and provide better options for younger people escaping those ghettos as a result. I also think that the burqa can have an incendiary effect in France in some circumstances, particularly after recent ISIS atrocities. As such, freedom of expression aside, it makes clear sense to ditch it.

It hasn't stopped us debating whether it is something that ought to have been done or not though, absent the French peoples entitlement to do it regardless

Indeed it hasn't, always a pleasure to have a busy banter on boards!

Peregrinus

I would also point out that the French position on this isn't normative for anyone but the French. If we're considering an Irish burqa ban, to apply only to Irish women, we can't justify that by saying the there are French women who are forced to wear the burqa and they can only be liberated from that oppression with a burqa ban. An Irish burqa ban clearly can't liberate French women from oppression being practiced in France by French people. An Irish burqa ban is going to impact Irish women, ostensibly in a way that diminishes their freedom, and if we seek to justify that ban by claims that it's the only way to liberate them from an even worse oppression, I do think we need to demonstrate the reality of an even worse oppression that is affecting them.

For Mark Hamill, if I understand him correctly (and my apologies if I don't) the very fact that a woman wears a burqa is evidence that she is oppressed. For the rest of us such a transparently circular argument is not going to pass muster. We'll need better evidence.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Peregrinus wrote: »

I would also point out that the French position on this isn't normative for anyone but the French.

I agree entirely, but what I think you'll find is that it if it comes to a democratic vote, other reasons will be found as many people simply find the burka intolerable and. as per the opening pages in this thread, are fearful of the spread of Islam. Growing numbers of ISIS atrocities are only going to add to this, so whether or not the reasons are fair and just, if it came to a vote it could be a close thing. Cynically perhaps, it could be big business interests that get in the way with Ireland having substantial trade interests in the Middle East, and the balance could fall between bigotry, fear and greed. Pretty typical of Irish politics so :pac:

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I agree entirely, but what I think you'll find is that it if it comes to a democratic vote, other reasons will be found as many people simply find the burka intolerable . . .

Possibly they would, but is that a sufficient reason for banning it? If a majority of people public displays of affection between same-sex couples intolerable, is it right to ban them? Or if a majority find abortions intolerable, should we ban them? Or if a majority find criticism or ridicule of religion intolerable, is it right to ban criticism or ridicule of religion?

There has to be more to it than that. The fact that I find the sight of people doing X, or the knowledge that people are doing X, intolerable is generally not a reason for a law saying that you must not do X. My feelings are my problem, not yours. Similarly, if my feeling result from the fact that I am "fearful of the spread of Islam", that's my fear, not yours. I don't have the right to demand that you assuage my fears.

smacl

I'm religious and support the ban

Peregrinus wrote: »

Similarly, if my feeling result from the fact that I am "fearful of the spread of Islam", that's my fear, not yours. I don't have the right to demand that you assuage my fears.

I'm not sure exactly how you reconcile the above statement with this one

Peregrinus wrote:

Ultimately, in a democracy, I think any particular moral rule can be imposed only if there is a consensus to accept its imposition. The reason or reasons why there is a consensus actually don't matter.

Reasons of course do matter. I think Ireland for example is evolving away from a morality based on Catholic dogma into one where egalitarianism is hugely important and discrimination of the grounds of gender or sexual orientation have become unacceptable. Islam, burkas and all, is not trusted as it is seen as essentially misogynistic and homophobic, with some striking parallels to Irish Catholicism in the latter half of the last century. Until such time as we see the 'a la carte' Muslim that is equally intolerant of discrimination of the grounds of gender or sexual orientation, I imagine this will remain the case.