Should Dublin ban Burqas and Hijabs?

gozunda

Dannyriver wrote: »

Well it would be if there was an outright ban as those that did want to wear them would be denied as has happened everywhere this has been tried. I'm done with the thread at this stage it really is just people repeating themselves ...all the best

So a law banning a piece of clothing that not only carries with it issues of gender oppression but also significant potential security implications is untenable because some are against it? Thankfully such reasoning is not a basis for democracy.

Shenshen

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

In fairness, there is fairly undisputed evidence of a worsening of the quality of lives of religious women in Iran during the reign of Reza Shah Pavlavi, when he banned the veil, and also prior to the 1979 Revolution, when the veil was publicly eschewed. Women were locked up at home, and avoided going into the street at all. I don't know if that would replicate itself in Ireland however, i'd doubt it.

The autobiographical novel, Reading Lolita in Tehran, covers the latter pretty well, and the joy of a great many women on the new conservative obligations after the 1979 Revolution.

I oppose the niqaab, but not on the basis that I can somehow get into the heads of women, and determine them to be in the subjugation of men. I'd oppose it even if it was entirely their free choice. It is simply a barrier to integration.

Years ago living in Montreal I was friends with a lady from Iran. She wasn't living in Iran when the revolution happened, she was studying abroad, but she was convinced that it was the hostility towards the openly religious during the reign of the Shah that contributed massively to the rise of the Ayatollah regime after he was ousted.

Shenshen

Shenshen wrote: »

Years ago living in Montreal I was friends with a lady from Iran. She wasn't living in Iran when the revolution happened, she was studying abroad, but she was convinced that it was the hostility towards the openly religious during the reign of the Shah that contributed massively to the rise of the Ayatollah regime after he was ousted.

That's interesting; I can easily believe it.

Similarly, I wouldn't be surprised if, in our own history, the Penal laws and discrimination against Roman Catholics during the British occupation of Ireland didn't act to increase the piety of the nation.

Roger Hassenforder

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

In fairness, there is fairly undisputed evidence of a worsening of the quality of lives of religious women in Iran during the reign of Reza Shah Pavlavi, when he banned the veil, and also prior to the 1979 Revolution, when the veil was publicly eschewed.

The autobiographical novel, Reading Lolita in Tehran, covers the latter pretty well, and the joy of a great many women on the new conservative obligations after the 1979 Revolution.

I oppose the niqaab, but not on the basis that I can somehow get into the heads of women, and determine them to be in the subjugation of men. I'd oppose it even if it was entirely their free choice. It is simply a barrier to integration.

A "worsening of the lives of religious women" or all women?

So why were they protesting when the Ayotallah prescribed them? One book (must look into!) V 100s of 1000s protesting on the streets ( (from wiki) didnt the author herself reluctantly start wearing it, and eventually left Tehran?)

It's fair to say some want to wear a burka, some dont. However, some dont seem to appreciate some women are forced to burka up or if they subconciously do, seem to overrule themselves with some liberal principles of not telling women what to wear.

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

A "worsening of the lives of religious women" or all women?

Reza Shah's ban on the veil was seriously unpopular back in the day, I don't have a breakdown of public opinion; those kinds of figures are difficult to ascertain under dictatorships.

Of course plenty of women favoured western dress under both Shahs, and many in Iran still do.

But I was under the impression that you asked for "examples of women hithertofore "unburka'd", celebrating and excercising their right to "burka up" once an authority prescribes their wearing", and that certainly did happen in 1979. Are you really saying it doesn't count unless every last woman was celebrating?

Again -- dictatorships and opinion polls don't tend to go hand in hand. I can't say how many opposed the new religious law; hundreds of thousands, probably. But it did have immense popularity too. Including from women affected.

Roger Hassenforder

Shenshen wrote: »

I do believe you've said that before, and I asked before how you think a ban on burqas would do anything at all to help women who are currently forced by their families to wear them?
If the aim of her family members is to keep her out of sight of strangers, they are not simply going to change their minds on that because there's now a law against the one piece of clothing the woman was allowed to go out in.

And I've already answered it!
I reckon eventually the men will get sick of having to do it all themselves!

You haven't answered my question (I'll have to check I asked you - apology might be forthcoming...)
Do you think a woman in a burka is fully engaged participant in society, contributing positively for both herself and society?

Roger Hassenforder

Shenshen wrote: »

And I'm equally against that law. I firmly believe that if people want to walk around naked, they should be allowed to do so.

Including male teachers, having their erect bits in front of your girls...Would he be allowed rub his willy, assuming hes allowed rub his arm, after all, it's just flesh...

If you want to strut nude, remove yourself where its accepted, not where society has established norms for behaviour.

Please....there's sticking to one's principles (an admirable quality usually) and then theres foolishness.

Roger Hassenforder

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Reza Shah's ban on the veil was seriously unpopular back in the day, I don't have a breakdown of public opinion; those kinds of figures are difficult to ascertain under dictatorships.

Of course plenty of women favoured western dress under both Shahs, and many in Iran still do.

But I was under the impression that you asked for "examples of women hithertofore "unburka'd", celebrating and excercising their right to "burka up" once an authority prescribes their wearing", and that certainly did happen in 1979. Are you really saying it doesn't count unless every last woman was celebrating?

Again -- dictatorships and opinion polls don't tend to go hand in hand. I can't say how many opposed the new religious law; hundreds of thousands, probably. But it did have immense popularity too. Including from women affected.

I did, and you've cited a book which (apparently) makes this claim, however the author herself seems to have had issues with the hijab. Not exactly evidence. (Better than a man in the pub told me though!)

The Shah banned burkas and hijabs though, hence the reaction, it crossed the line into persecution. Personally I dont have an issue with a Muslim wearing a hijab, if they want to demonstrate an aspect of their faith. I'd actually probably be opposed to a hijab ban.

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I did, and you've cited a book which (apparently) makes this claim, however the author herself seems to have had issues with the hijab. Not exactly evidence. (Better than a man in the pub told me though!)

The emboldened bit is kind of the point. Azar Nafisi isn't some apologist for the Islamic revolution, she isn't religious at all and has no reason to invent those claims.

I would have thought this was all common sense. Of course many women in Iran were delighted with the Revolution and the new codes, particularly in the very beginning.

Again, I'm opposed to the niqaab myself; but not because i think all (or most) women wearing it are being oppressed; certainly not in Ireland. To say otherwise seems highly presumptuous, condescending, and more than a little disingenuous. I feel like some people take that approach simply for the sake of convenience, so they don't have to justify their deeper problems with Islam.

Odhinn

It should be perhaps pointed out that the numbers of women who wear the burqa and niqab - in france and elsewhere - were/are quite small.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/what-is-the-burqa-and-how-many-muslim-women-actually-wear-it/

Shenshen

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

And I've already answered it!
I reckon eventually the men will get sick of having to do it all themselves!

You haven't answered my question (I'll have to check I asked you - apology might be forthcoming...)
Do you think a woman in a burka is fully engaged participant in society, contributing positively for both herself and society?

What "all"? At the most, they'd be the ones who'll have to bring the kids to school. And even that they can easily avoid doing by claiming the kids are being home-schooled.

I think I'll have to ask you what you'd consider a "fully engaged participant" in society. And also what you'd consider a positive contribution to society.

ohnonotgmail

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

And I've already answered it!
I reckon eventually the men will get sick of having to do it all themselves!

You haven't answered my question (I'll have to check I asked you - apology might be forthcoming...)
Do you think a woman in a burka is fully engaged participant in society, contributing positively for both herself and society?

Do you place the same obligation on people with religions other than islam?

Shenshen

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Including male teachers, having their erect bits in front of your girls...Would he be allowed rub his willy, assuming hes allowed rub his arm, after all, it's just flesh...

If you want to strut nude, remove yourself where its accepted, not where society has established norms for behaviour.

Please....there's sticking to one's principles (an admirable quality usually) and then theres foolishness.

I love how people here always associate nudity with sexual behaviour. I've been to saunas since I was maybe 6 years of age, my parents would take us camping in nudist colonies in then-Yugoslavia from when I was 10 to when I was 16, yet I was well in my 20s before I saw my first real-life "erect bit".

Roger Hassenforder

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Again, I'm opposed to the niqaab myself; but not because i think all (or most) women wearing it are being oppressed; certainly not in Ireland. To say otherwise seems highly presumptuous, condescending, and more than a little disingenuous. I feel like some people take that approach simply for the sake of convenience, so they don't have to justify their deeper problems with Islam.

I presume that "anti-Muslim" thing wasnt at me?

(As ive said earlier) It's fair and reasonable to say not all women are forced to wear it. It's equally fair to say however, many are forced to wear it.
This is neither "presumptuous, condescending, ... (or) disingenuous", and you might refrain from suggestions I've claimed otherwise.


"Let's just get something straight: the burqa is not Islamic. It is a custom imported from Najd, a region in Saudi Arabia and the power base of its Salafi fundamentalist form of Islam...
On a final note; it helps to think of this issue from the perspective of the tradition that produced it. In Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and IS-controlled areas women are forced to wear it. Why do you think Saudi women activists have launched this year a campaign with the hash tag the niqab (burqa) does not represent me? They are rejecting this oppression and fighting for their freedom. Think of enslavement as synonymous to burqa, and their marvel will become clear."

Dr Elham Manea is an Islamic scholar in the department of political science at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, a former Swiss government commissioner and author of Women and Sharia Law


"As a practising (though flawed) Shia Muslim, I watch the new puritans with apprehension. So too other Muslims worldwide, the silent many, watch and tremble. The hijab, jilbab, burqa and niqab are visible signs of this retreat from progressive values.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/muslim-woman-veil-hijab

Roger Hassenforder

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Do you place the same obligation on people with religions other than islam?

Answer the question first, and then I'll answer your latest!

Oops. Replied to wrong person. My bad.
Same question applies to you.
I'm not placing any obligations on them. Simple question...

Roger Hassenforder

Shenshen wrote: »

I love how people here always associate nudity with sexual behaviour. I've been to saunas since I was maybe 6 years of age, my parents would take us camping in nudist colonies in then-Yugoslavia from when I was 10 to when I was 16, yet I was well in my 20s before I saw my first real-life "erect bit".

Deflection like a boss!
They're not mutually exclusive either.

This isnt about prudishness. & fair play to your liberal upbringing, where they chose to go to a place where clothing was optional. My kids have seen my bits. That said, I dont flash them about to their friends.

So would you like your kids teacher teaching them in the nip?
Chuaigh me
Chuaigh tù
chuaigh sé
....With his willy waving about?

Roger Hassenforder

Shenshen wrote: »

What "all"? At the most, they'd be the ones who'll have to bring the kids to school. And even that they can easily avoid doing by claiming the kids are being home-schooled.

I think I'll have to ask you what you'd consider a "fully engaged participant" in society. And also what you'd consider a positive contribution to society.

So I'll put you down for a hedged "no"?

A fully engaged participant I'd regard as someone who can hold a conversation with anyone else in society, irrespective of their sex and martial status, hold down a job should they so wish, who can be regarded as a complete person.in their own right, not an object. Who can enjoy the company of the opposite sex in social, work and leisure settings. Someone who isnt regarded as a second class citizen by the ideology she subscribes to.
Things like that.

A positive contribution is one where society enjoys a gain from ones presence, where all of the above occur.

Roger Hassenforder

Shenshen wrote: »

I agree that people who would force women to wear certain items of clothing need to face up to the fact that this is unacceptable here. However, you're not going to achieve that by punishing those women that are already oppressed even further.

Allowing that not all are forced to wear a burka, but for the ones who are.
How do we either engage with these women, or help those who need helping?

I doubt engaging with the men would work.

ohnonotgmail

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Answer the question first, and then I'll answer your latest!

Oops. Replied to wrong person. My bad.
Same question applies to you.
I'm not placing any obligations on them. Simple question...

Of course you are.

Grayson

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Reza Shah's ban on the veil was seriously unpopular back in the day, I don't have a breakdown of public opinion; those kinds of figures are difficult to ascertain under dictatorships.

And ataturk did something similar. He sent soldiers into the street who ripped them from women.


One thing to remember in the context of Ireland is the number of women in europe who wear a burqa. It's a really small amount.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/what-is-the-burqa-and-how-many-muslim-women-actually-wear-it/

Sheeps

It would seem that balaclavas are back in.

Captain Obvious

cfuserkildare wrote: »

" Do you really consider yourself that different to strict Islamists? "

This statement says it all really.

Do we really want to lower our standards to their level?

Do we really want to permit the instigation of Sharia Law here?

Because permitting cultural traditions such as Burkha, Hajib, FGM etc this is Exactly what you are doing!!!

I bet you typed that without a hint of irony. One of the most common arguments made by anti-immigration folks on here is that we would be treated poorly if we went to where the immigrants are from. That is lowering the bar.


People are talking about fighting Islam by banning foreigners, banning religious practices, controlling what women wear, forcing young kids into cultural education, locking up with extreme ideas. They talk about the savages and animals being imported. How exactly are these ideas different from extreme Islam? Because one is based on a religion and one isn't?


Let me ask you this. Someone mentioned that women in the west might be forced to wear burkhas or the like by their husbands. So what exactly do you think will happen if you ban a particular item of clothing? Domestic bliss? It's a pointless rule that won't even put a dint in the problem. If a woman is being forced to wear specific clothing by her husband you don't ban the clothes, you provide her a way out of the relationship.

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Let me ask you this. Someone mentioned that women in the west might be forced to wear burkhas or the like by their husbands. So what exactly do you think will happen if you ban a particular item of clothing? Domestic bliss? It's a pointless rule that won't even put a dint in the problem. If a woman is being forced to wear specific clothing by her husband you don't ban the clothes, you provide her a way out of the relationship.

I agreed with your post until I got to this part.



Yes there is a risk of causing further harm to women, should face-coverings be banned. That simply has to be acknowledged.



But before we consider how that may be mitigated, we have to ask ourselves whether we really want to appeal to such a low denominator? Is there any other occasion where we appeal to male violence, or tyranny, as a reason NOT to do something? That argument seems to be, at its very core, to be on very shaky ground.



Secondly, in terms of mitigation, we do live in a very cohesive society where things like segregation (eg primary and secondary education, ghettos, etc) are absolutely negligible. The amount of children who are home-schooled in Ireland is similarly negligible, and they mostly seem to be middle-class white Irish children. I don't foresee any change there. Having children at school not only protects those children from social marginalisation as they grow up (ideally without their faces being covered), it also provides a social outlet for their primary caregiver, usually women.



I find it hard to envisage the Muslim women of Ireland being locked in their homes in the event of a burqa ban, although there is some risk of that happening, to an extent.



But again, we don't make laws in order to appease male violence, That's a really, really dodgy path to go down.

Captain Obvious

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I agreed with your post until I got to this part.



Yes there is a risk of causing further harm to women, should face-coverings be banned. That simply has to be acknowledged.

I didn't say there would be a risk of further harm from her husband. In that regard it would be completely ineffective. An extra harm would come from those enforcing the ban on her for her own good.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But before we consider how that may be mitigated, we have to ask ourselves whether we really want to appeal to such a low denominator? Is there any other occasion where we appeal to male violence, or tyranny, as a reason NOT to do something? That argument seems to be, at its very core, to be on very shaky ground.

It seems you have missed my point. It won't appeal to the husband. It simply won't change anything. If a person controls what their spouse wears, banning a particular item of clothing won't stop that control. They'll just force them to wear something else. You aren't improving anyones life.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Secondly, in terms of mitigation, we do live in a very cohesive society where things like segregation (eg primary and secondary education, ghettos, etc) are absolutely negligible. The amount of children who are home-schooled in Ireland is similarly negligible, and they mostly seem to be middle-class white Irish children. I don't foresee any change there. Having children at school not only protects those children from social marginalisation as they grow up (ideally without their faces being covered), it also provides a social outlet for their primary caregiver, usually women.

We're not talking about regular school though.

Denmark will force children living in “ghetto” neighbourhoods containing large numbers of migrants to learn about democracy and equality, as well as traditions such as Christmas.


While the primary focus will be on language skills and learning readiness, the plan also seeks to educate the mainly Muslim children in Danish traditions and Christian holidays such as Christmas and Easter.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I find it hard to envisage the Muslim women of Ireland being locked in their homes in the event of a burqa ban, although there is some risk of that happening, to an extent.

No, but they may be locked up if they wear one a burkha outside. At least if Roger and the morality police get their way.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But again, we don't make laws in order to appease male violence, That's a really, really dodgy path to go down.

And not something I suggested.

ohnonotgmail

The joke about this thread is that the proponents of the ban are trying to present it as if they are doing it for the benefit of women who wear burqas and niqabs. They must think the rest of us are awful thick.

Roger Hassenforder

My big ears are burning...

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No, but they may be locked up if they wear one a burkha outside. At least if Roger and the morality police get their way.

And not something I suggested.

Ditto.
Or a link otherwise

Roger Hassenforder

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The joke about this thread is that the proponents of the ban are trying to present it as if they are doing it for the benefit of women who wear burqas and niqabs. They must think the rest of us are awful thick.

Not this tired "argument" again, ironically thanked by its most frequent proponent in the last few pages (Who also claimed to be "done with the thread").
Top stuff lads.

Samsong

Only if they also ban police from wearing balaclavas

Danzy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The joke about this thread is that the proponents of the ban are trying to present it as if they are doing it for the benefit of women who wear burqas and niqabs. They must think the rest of us are awful thick.

Are they?

Most seem to view it the same as a person who wears a Swastika T shirt.

They may be alright people but they are marking themselves as being committed proponents of militant regressivism and adhering to a belief set that is nearly always at odds with basic human rights and dignity.

Graces7

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So I'll put you down for a hedged "no"?

A fully engaged participant I'd regard as someone who can hold a conversation with anyone else in society, irrespective of their sex and martial status, hold down a job should they so wish, who can be regarded as a complete person.in their own right, not an object. Who can enjoy the company of the opposite sex in social, work and leisure settings. Someone who isnt regarded as a second class citizen by the ideology she subscribes to.
Things like that.

A positive contribution is one where society enjoys a gain from ones presence, where all of the above occur.

That rules most of us out then!
Including most old wans like me. All but housebound, living alone.

I would add someone who does not discriminate or judge another person because their way of life/dress etc is different . Especially when they have no idea what that way of life means. Whose mind and heart are open. To whom "different"is not a threat.

Raising kids is a huge " contribution to society"

I lived in a town here where there were families in the same supermarket, the women fully veiled, with their little ones. We chatted easily. Eyes are very expressive.

Hopefully the next generation will get this right.