Burka ban

beach_walker · 19-08-2016 01:47PM

So do you support the ban on burkinis that have come up in some French towns recently?

The thread title is the ban on Burkas. Not hijabs.

Well I didn't bring 'em up to be fair. You did actually.

Michael OBrien · 19-08-2016 02:07PM

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

beach_walker wrote: »

So do you support the ban on burkinis that have come up in some French towns recently?

Provided the face is uncovered, no I don't support the ban on them on beaches. I view it as a slightly absurd form of wetsuit. If private pools don't accept that attire (wetsuits) then burkinis are also out. Equality at play works both ways.

Michael OBrien · 19-08-2016 02:56PM

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

beach_walker wrote: »

Well I didn't bring 'em up to be fair. You did actually.

You mentioned veil. So unless you know christian girls at mass with a full burka, I am guessing you were thinking headscarf or hijab.

looksee · 19-08-2016 02:58PM

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

beach_walker wrote: »

So do you support the ban on burkinis that have come up in some French towns recently?

Well I didn't bring 'em up to be fair. You did actually.

Not sure who you are addressing here, but are you actually reading the thread or just throwing out random observations?

beach_walker · 19-08-2016 04:19PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

You mentioned veil. So unless you know christian girls at mass with a full burka, I am guessing you were thinking headscarf or hijab.

I wasn't. I mentioned it as another item of religious clothing, one with whos wearers I'm much more familiar with on a personal level.

looksee wrote: »

Not sure who you are addressing here, but are you actually reading the thread or just throwing out random observations?

My post was strangely formatted, my bad from changing things before posting. I was asking Michael. He got it and answered. Is that ok?

looksee · 19-08-2016 11:18PM

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

Why are you discussing garments worn by Christians at Mass? Muslim women can wear burqas during worship if they wish, the argument is that they should not be worn in public.

Nobody is arguing to ban the Hijab which is the islamic headscarf.

Well this is blatantly untrue. I've heard/read it called for plenty of times and indeed a few countries have had (not sure of the ones which still do) bans on it in aspects of public life.
Today 12:16

Read that as 'nobody here is arguing to ban the Hijab'. If you trawl the internet you will find an argument about anything. But in this discussion all that is being discussed is banning the burqa /niqab - ie the garment that covers the face.

mrkiscool2 · 20-08-2016 12:04AM

I'm religious and support the ban

looksee wrote: »

Read that as 'nobody here is arguing to ban the Hijab'. If you trawl the internet you will find an argument about anything. But in this discussion all that is being discussed is banning the burqa /niqab - ie the garment that covers the face.

While me and looksee may not agree on whether the burqa should be banned or not, gotta agree on this. The hijab and burqa are different and should not be compared. Arguing for the ban of one is not arguing for the ban of another.

Akrasia · 21-08-2016 03:04PM

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

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

While me and looksee may not agree on whether the burqa should be banned or not, gotta agree on this. The hijab and burqa are different and should not be compared. Arguing for the ban of one is not arguing for the ban of another.

Burkas and niqabs are extreme life limiting cultural practices and fundamentally abusive towards women. I consider them on par with female genital mutilation which is a practice that many Muslim women support despite the fact that it's blatantly barbaric

looksee · 21-08-2016 05:12PM

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

Akrasia wrote: »

Burkas and niqabs are extreme life limiting cultural practices and fundamentally abusive towards women. I consider them on par with female genital mutilation which is a practice that many Muslim women support despite the fact that it's blatantly barbaric

I really can't agree that a piece of clothing, no matter how restrictive, is comparable to carving bits of flesh off children. The fgm cannot be undone, whereas a woman who is sufficiently motivated and strong enough can stop wearing a burqa.

Cabaal · 21-08-2016 05:31PM

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

Akrasia wrote: »

Burkas and niqabs are extreme life limiting cultural practices and fundamentally abusive towards women. I consider them on par with female genital mutilation which is a practice that many Muslim women support despite the fact that it's blatantly barbaric

Got to agree with looksee here, comparing GBM with Burkas and niqabs is just silly. They are not comparable and you are undermining any argument by using such a comparison.

Also, on a slightly off-topic note, I always find it strange that people have such issues with FGM but have no problems with the male equivalent. Infact the HSE and others perform such procedures for religious reasons all the time. (Both practices are of course wrong)

Michael OBrien · 22-08-2016 10:42AM

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

looksee wrote: »

I really can't agree that a piece of clothing, no matter how restrictive, is comparable to carving bits of flesh off children. The fgm cannot be undone, whereas a woman who is sufficiently motivated and strong enough can stop wearing a burqa.

There can be consequences for any form of rebellion like that. This goes from threats to actual attacks, including acid attacks (google muslim acid attacks).

Also it might be wise to understand that there are (at least) two types of fgm. One is commonly sought by muslims (refer to 'Sunna circumcision'), one by extremists (far more brutal).

The lightest Sunna is somewhat comparable to MGM.
Depending on the muslim community, resisting either the sunna circumcision (for late converts) or the burka/niqab can have dire ramifications.

Of course both practices are not the exact same, but both are dangerous to resist for related reasons.

magicbastarder · 22-08-2016 11:13AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Cabaal wrote: »

Also, on a slightly off-topic note, I always find it strange that people have such issues with FGM but have no problems with the male equivalent.

i will be ultra-pedantic, and take issue with the word 'equivalent'. the circumcision was originally 'developed' for hygiene reasons, if i understand correctly, and is not intended as a punitive or restrictive practice, whereas FGM pretty much is. so they're not 'equivalent' - even though i'm fairly certain you probably didn't mean the word with that specific meaning.

looksee · 22-08-2016 11:23AM

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

Michael OBrien wrote: »

There can be consequences for any form of rebellion like that. This goes from threats to actual attacks, including acid attacks (google muslim acid attacks).

Also it might be wise to understand that there are (at least) two types of fgm. One is commonly sought by muslims (refer to 'Sunna circumcision'), one by extremists (far more brutal).

The lightest Sunna is somewhat comparable to MGM.
Depending on the muslim community, resisting either the sunna circumcision (for late converts) or the burka/niqab can have dire ramifications.

Of course both practices are not the exact same, but both are dangerous to resist for related reasons.

The difference is that an adult woman has the choice of deciding whether to rebel and take the possible consequences, a child has no choice about an illegal (in the west), dangerous and painful operation which is child abuse. And dealing with the long term consequences. In the case of fgm it is the same obsession with women's reproductive systems that the RC church suffers from, with its consequences for pregnancy and childbirth.

As I suggested in another post, the fact that women support and continue this practise has as much to do with cultural conditioning as religion - where the two become so intertwined as to defy reason and education. We cannot control it in the countries where it is traditionally practised, but we can refuse to allow it when it goes against the laws and practise of the countries that people have chosen to come to.

Akrasia · 22-08-2016 12:49PM

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

looksee wrote: »

I really can't agree that a piece of clothing, no matter how restrictive, is comparable to carving bits of flesh off children. The fgm cannot be undone, whereas a woman who is sufficiently motivated and strong enough can stop wearing a burqa.

Physically mutilating children is permanent and violent and sickening and wrong. (Objectively wrong and I don't care what cultural relativists might say)

But taking a 12 year old girl and telling her that she should be ashamed to be seen by anyone outside of her own direct family, that she should cover herself up from head to toe, isolating herself totally from any personal contact with the outside world, and completely submit to the will of her father and her husband or else suffer dire consequences, that's psychologically abusive and just as life limiting as any physical mutilation

Akrasia · 22-08-2016 12:57PM

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

i will be ultra-pedantic, and take issue with the word 'equivalent'. the circumcision was originally 'developed' for hygiene reasons, if i understand correctly, and is not intended as a punitive or restrictive practice, whereas FGM pretty much is. so they're not 'equivalent' - even though i'm fairly certain you probably didn't mean the word with that specific meaning.

I'm not sure why it was developed originally, but in the bible, god demands his chosen people to being him hundreds of foreskins of their enemies as a sacrifice. Circumcision wasn't done for health reasons, it was done to mark the boys as part of the jewish tribe.

"And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you."
genesis 17:11

magicbastarder · 22-08-2016 01:01PM

I'm religious and support the ban

from what i understand (and i may be wrong, happy to be corrected if so) circumcision is believed to have begun for hygiene reasons, and was then co-opted by the faith.
and it's not just jewish boys who are circumcised, it's a very common practice in islam.

Akrasia · 22-08-2016 01:27PM

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

from what i understand (and i may be wrong, happy to be corrected if so) circumcision is believed to have begun for hygiene reasons, and was then co-opted by the faith.
and it's not just jewish boys who are circumcised, it's a very common practice in islam.

Hygiene wasn't really a big deal back in biblical times when the circumcision was probably performed using dirty rusty blades without any kind of disinfectant and they didn't have any concept of germs as the cause of disease.
Biblical circumcision involved only the very tip of the foreskin, and it was just to mark the child, If you look at Michelangelo's David, he is circumcised according to the biblical tradition.

It was only after Christianity started that the circumcision changed to remove the entire foreskin and the reason for this, was that the traditional circumcision was too easy to disguise and people were hiding their 'covenant with god' for political and social reasons

In the 1800s circumcision became more popular in certain cultures, and here the justification was hygiene (also morality as it was believed that it reduced masturbation)

recedite · 22-08-2016 02:19PM

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

Akrasia wrote: »

If you look at Michelangelo's David, he is circumcised according to the biblical tradition.

There seems to be a bit of controversy over this. I was quite happy a few minutes ago, not knowing that such a controversy even existed.
Now I'm not sure what to think, I'll probably have to just sit on the barbed wire fence for this one.

starshine1234 · 22-08-2016 02:30PM

Delirium wrote: »

...
I just don't understand how banning the burka does anything to stop terrorism. Should we also ban baseball caps and sunglasses as they can be used to conceal a person identity?

But is that the reason for the Burka ban?

If not, then you are addressing points which you have made up.

The reason often given for the ban is that the burka is an overt religious symbol and the burka is provocative for that reason. Any provocative symbol can be banned on public safety grounds.

Overt expressions of religion should be banned in public. The alternative is too dangerous to be consistent with public safety.

Of course, we could refuse to accept a multicultural society in which case expression of the single host culture isn't likely to lead to social or public unrest. We could then allow cultural or religious expression.

In a multicultural world we must ban all religious expression, and cultural expression, as it is too provocative and it leads to public unrest and public harm.

Michael OBrien · 22-08-2016 02:45PM

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

Michael OBrien wrote: »

How is my statement that the religious justifications for the burka are false any of those things? Or how about that there are religious benefits from banning the burka? That Islam allows for modification of religious practice if the country they are a minority in has a law opposing said practice.
This point has not been addressed at all by anyone so far.

My earlier point seems to have been ignored for the 4th time. Anyone have any views on it.

silverharp · 22-08-2016 03:11PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

My earlier point seems to have been ignored for the 4th time. Anyone have any views on it.

they will pull arguments to suit, they wouldn't agree willingly to new rules designed to encourage them to play along with the rest of us, I wouldn't imagine Muslims agreeing to a ban on Halal meat for example even though it is culturally inappropriate for a European country.

magicbastarder · 22-08-2016 03:52PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Michael OBrien wrote: »

My earlier point seems to have been ignored for the 4th time. Anyone have any views on it.

you cannot use 'people will obey the law' as a justfication for the law itself. for example, the lack of chewing gum in singapore is not a justification for the law banning it, it's a consequence.
that's a pure 'might is right' approach.

Cabaal · 22-08-2016 05:05PM

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

i will be ultra-pedantic, and take issue with the word 'equivalent'. the circumcision was originally 'developed' for hygiene reasons, if i understand correctly, and is not intended as a punitive or restrictive practice, whereas FGM pretty much is. so they're not 'equivalent' - even though i'm fairly certain you probably didn't mean the word with that specific meaning.

Actually in the USA most circumcisions don't actually take place for religious reason, atleast not the religious reasons you'd think of. An awful lot of non-Jewish or non-Muslims get it done.

The practice instead stems from the sex phobic days of J Harvey Kellogg (yes, the cornflakes guy!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSWbTv3hng

Perhaps equivalent may not be the most appropriate word, but lets remember that at the end of the day we are still talking about disfiguring a person for no good reason and nobody seems to really care about it happening to male children.

Michael OBrien · 22-08-2016 05:07PM

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

you cannot use 'people will obey the law' as a justfication for the law itself. for example, the lack of chewing gum in singapore is not a justification for the law banning it, it's a consequence.
that's a pure 'might is right' approach.

That is not the argument. The issues people who oppose the ban include "what will it do to change the conditions for women who are forced to wear the burka? (rather than less restrictive yet still conservative attire).
I understand that viewpoint. They see banning it as not actually doing anything to help those actually oppressed.

My point is that the ban CAN help those women as Islam allows for certain changes to be allowed if the area has a law preventing that practice. Now bear in mind that you MUST understand that this change is limited, so a ban on ALL muslim headgear would NOT work for the same reason my support of the ban on the burka WOULD work.
Muslims cannot be forced to SIN by law. But the burka is more political and cultural than religiously motivated. There is nothing in the koran that justifies it. Thus such women now have a valid, LEGAL, argument for wearing less restrictive clothing (Hijab or other related headgear). They are not committing a sin (having their head uncovered) by any religious rule.
The burka is viewed as a way of showing publicly how observant you are, much like the act of standing up in the middle of a market and throwing money to poor people was something done by overbearing religious people as a 'sign of charity'. It was done more for self image and self grandisation (or the promotion of the family/husband) than because it was REQUIRED.

I don't seek to argue anything like might equals right. I am arguing for genuine reform using genuine religious legal wrangles to help people get more freedom.

Anyone who chooses to wear such restrictive clothing without pressure, is not HARMED by the ban as it was optional in the first place while those NOT able to choose now have a new tool in their arsenal that is hard to ignore.

Also since that culture is honor based, a legal ruling would save face and thus a husband is not shamed the same way it would be as before.

Michael OBrien · 22-08-2016 05:15PM

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

silverharp wrote: »

they will pull arguments to suit, they wouldn't agree willingly to new rules designed to encourage them to play along with the rest of us, I wouldn't imagine Muslims agreeing to a ban on Halal meat for example even though it is culturally inappropriate for a European country.

Halal meat offers no alternative. That is not equivalent. Eating haram meat is a sin. A law cannot force muslims to sin. Please read my post and read the link I provided in the laws and religion and how they interact.

The dress code is a sliding scale, not a black and white issue. BECAUSE its a sliding scale you can force conservatives to move DOWN the scale a bit with a ban on the burka/niqab. They save face, still obey the religious duties and can accept the change as it is the LAW. This works the OTHER way as conservative women were perfectly able to get away with a hijab in Iran until demands for ultra strict laws came into play. Its political not religious.
They (men) may not like it, but the women being oppressed can at least argue legally for moderation.

Again this ONLY would work for the burka/niqab. NOT for all religious headgear as that would end up with forcing muslims to SIN.

You might even argue that the burka is close to innovation in Islam, which leads to Shirk as it is worn for self agrandisment over actual observance.

starshine1234 · 22-08-2016 05:30PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

... A law cannot force muslims to sin.

That quote above is incorrect.

The law can be anything it wants, within reason.

For example, Jehovah's Witnesses consider that their religion prevents them from accepting blood. Parents have been willing to allow their own children to die because of this rule.

Doctors have gone to court and courts have ordered that the blood transfusions take place. In effect, the parents have been ordered, by law, to disregard their religion and to sin.

I can give more examples.

I can also say that I can create a new religion tomorrow which requires anything. For example, Rastafarians consider that they must be allowed to smoke cannabis.

But Johhny Law says that they cannot smoke cannabis, even if their religion requires it, and they are forced into a sinful existence as a result.

The law can clearly ban Halal meat if it wishes.

Michael OBrien · 22-08-2016 05:36PM

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

starshine1234 wrote: »

That quote above is incorrect.

The law can be anything it wants, within reason.

For example, Jehovah's Witnesses consider that their religion prevents them from accepting blood. Parents have been willing to allow their own children to die because of this rule.

Doctors have gone to court and courts have ordered that the blood transfusions take place. In effect, the parents have been ordered, by law, to disregard their religion and to sin.

I can give more examples.

I can also say that I can create a new religion tomorrow which requires anything. For example, Rastafarians consider that they must be allowed to smoke cannabis.

But Johhny Law says that they cannot smoke cannabis, even if their religion requires it, and they are forced into a sinful existence as a result.

The law can clearly ban Halal meat if it wishes.

Oh for crying out loud. I am referring to the link and that muslims are RELIGIOUSLY obliged to follow the law of the land, UNLESS it forces them to sin. Of course a law can FORCE anything on anyone, but muslims would be religiously motivated to BREAK it, or subvert it, if they are strongly religious.
My point is that the dress code is not an ALL or nothing situation so I seek to move them down a scale so that the new limit is something like a Chadoor.

Therefore to be a conservative muslim, women can go as far as this, AND NO FURTHER, and still be respected as rightous women according to their communities. They would still meet ALL religious requirements and no shame would occur because they have reached the legal limits of covering up.
By moving the bar, via the law, this would help free women forced to wear the burka or niqab.

smacl · 22-08-2016 05:36PM

I'm religious and support the ban

starshine1234 wrote: »

In a multicultural world we must ban all religious expression, and cultural expression, as it is too provocative and it leads to public unrest and public harm.

Rubbish. In a multicultural society we embrace diversity and enjoy the rich tapestry of life that goes with it. No need to ban anything, all you need is for people to respect the rule of law, outside of that they can do as they please.

Where society deems specific more extreme cases are unacceptable, this case the burqa, we legislate against them.

starshine1234 · 22-08-2016 05:43PM

starshine1234 wrote:

In a multicultural world we must ban all religious expression, and cultural expression, as it is too provocative and it leads to public unrest and public harm.

Your reply.

smacl wrote: »

Rubbish. In a multicultural society we embrace diversity and enjoy the rich tapestry of life that goes with it. No need to ban anything, all you need is for people to respect the rule of law, outside of that they can do as they please.

Where society deems specific more extreme cases are unacceptable, this case the burqa, we legislate against them.

What you said was rubbish.

In a multicultural society SOME people may embrace diversity. Many other will not, and that will cause chaos and society will fail.

All the leftist liberal love in the world does not change that.

Have you not noticed the violence that accompanies Islam in the West?

All we need is for people to follow the law, you say. :rolleyes:

That doesn't work if you haven't noticed.

Multiculturalism will destroy our country. All the aspirational nonsense in the world won't change that.

I have of course given an alternative. We could reject multiculturalism and instead have a nice peaceful society and nation. But that isn't liberal or progressive enough. So we will have chaos instead.

Cabaal · 22-08-2016 05:53PM

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

starshine1234 wrote: »

Have you not noticed the violence that accompanies Islam in the West?

Have you not read your history books and noticed the violence and oppression that came with Christianity in the West? More recently have you not noted the oppression's, abuse etc that has come with it in the West from everywhere to USA, Australia, Ireland etc.

The world is never perfect, we never lived in a utopia before and we won't in the future.

However, a more accepting world is a better world and we have improved in many ways in relation to that.

Ireland rejected multiculturalism in the past, we didn't have people of colour, we seriously had issues with protestants in the past. We did not have a better country back then.

Burka ban

Comments