Burka ban

Absolam · 20-09-2016 01:46AM

I'm religious and support the ban

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

These women have been so indoctrinated by not just their religion but their culture as well that the Burkha (and other garments) are for their benefit, it's like a form of brainwashing.
There's an article on the BBC at the moment about the burkini and an australian female muslim talking about it. She comes out with the same reasoning I've heard other muslim women give on interviews on tv and in print, like it's been so drummed into their brains that it's almost an automatic response

It really is amazing how much brainwashing and indoctrination goes on, and how the denizens of A&A have proven so resolutely immune

Still, if it's the indoctrination that's the issue then not letting them wear burkas isn't going to change that, only stopping the indoctrination will. Though I'm pretty suspicious of anyone saying they know better than someone else because that other person has obviously been brainwashed, especially when there are people who convert to Islam without being brainwashed or indoctrinated and choose to observe the most stringent modesty requirements. I reckon I'd want a more definitive test of indoctrination/brainwashing than 'she disagrees with me' before I accept the 'it's for their own good, they're brainwashed' argument.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

It isn't really just a fashion accessory though, it's their culture saying that women's hair is an inherently sexual object, that if they show it men will be inflamed with lust and desire and that if they display their hair they'll be bringing shame upon themselves and their family.

Yes, their culture is different. Your culture was also once different; consider Victorian attitudes to displays of flesh. Personally, I don't see oppressing people as a great way to encourage people to consider our culture favourably; making it clear that we allow them to choose for themselves seems a much more egalitarian approach to me.

Nick Park · 20-09-2016 11:01AM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

They are being told not to wear it because it is threatening the secular values of France.

Values such as giving people the freedom to wear whatever clothing they choose?

robindch · 20-09-2016 11:30AM

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

Nick Park wrote: »

Values such as giving people the freedom to wear whatever clothing they choose?

And is that a value which the religious always respect?

Or do some religious use this freedom to oppress women?

smacl · 20-09-2016 11:33AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Nick Park wrote: »

Values such as giving people the freedom to wear whatever clothing they choose?

Wouldn't have had you down as favouring the pro-choice line Nick

Nick Park · 20-09-2016 11:38AM

smacl wrote: »

Wouldn't have had you down as favouring the pro-choice line Nick

Ah, that's because the word 'pro-choice' has been well and truly bastardised.

I favour choice as freely as possible in every area where it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Nick Park · 20-09-2016 11:41AM

robindch wrote: »

And is that a value which the religious always respect?

Or do some religious use this freedom to oppress women?

Is this 'International Ask an Irrelevant Question Day'?

Of course some religious don't always respect the value of choosing what you wear. Just as some agnostics don't and some atheists don't.

But secular values are ones that both religious and nonreligious should embrace. And choosing one's clothing seems a fairly reasonable freedom to me, irrespective of whether religion is involved or not.

silverharp · 20-09-2016 11:48AM

Nick Park wrote: »

Values such as giving people the freedom to wear whatever clothing they choose?

Normally it would and if you look at Burkas as an isolated issue it makes little sense to do anything expect have the usual battle of ideas in the public sphere or modify the freedom for security reasons. However I see no reason why a "free" society shouldn't step in to keep it a "free" society. at the risk of whataboutery the ultimate free society would allow Muslims to have FGM on the NHS , Polygamy and child bride marriage.

robindch · 20-09-2016 12:13PM

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

Nick Park wrote: »

Is this 'International Ask an Irrelevant Question Day'?

Matthew 7:5 :rolleyes:

Nick Park wrote: »

And choosing one's clothing seems a fairly reasonable freedom to me, irrespective of whether religion is involved or not.

Couldn't agree more - that's why why the religious oppress women by prohibiting them from wearing anything save for clothing which has all the style of a refuse sack, the state needs to step in and stop them - so that the reasonable freedoms guaranteed by the state are not subverted.

Nick Park · 20-09-2016 12:13PM

silverharp wrote: »

Normally it would and if you look at Burkas as an isolated issue it makes little sense to do anything expect have the usual battle of ideas in the public sphere or modify the freedom for security reasons. However I see no reason why a "free" society shouldn't step in to keep it a "free" society. at the risk of whataboutery the ultimate free society would allow Muslims to have FGM on the NHS , Polygamy and child bride marriage.

So, countries like Belgium want to restrict women from wearing a burka because it will result in an unfree society which permits the mutilation and rape of children.

Meanwhile, it is still legal in Belgium to import and produce pornography featuring children (providing such acts are not for the purpose of sale or distribution).

It all makes sense now.

Nick Park · 20-09-2016 12:16PM

robindch wrote: »

Matthew 7:5 :rolleyes:Couldn't agree more - that's why why the religious oppress women by prohibiting them from wearing anything save for clothing which has all the style of a refuse sack, the state needs to step in and stop them - so that the reasonable freedoms guaranteed by the state are not subverted.

And if people genuinely choose to wear something that has all the style of a refuse sack? Then presumably it has to be a non-religious refuse sack?

'Atheists for secular refuse sacks!' Now there's a slogan to fire up the proletariat.

silverharp · 20-09-2016 12:23PM

Nick Park wrote: »

So, countries like Belgium want to restrict women from wearing a burka because it will result in an unfree society which permits the mutilation and rape of children.

Meanwhile, it is still legal in Belgium to import and produce pornography featuring children (providing such acts are not for the purpose of sale or distribution).

It all makes sense now.

I didn't say one would lead to the other just that a society has the right to set standards of behaviour as a principle, I believe Germany recently had to tighten up on marriage age recently because of the recent arrivals. As for Belgium and an issue I have no knowledge of , they certainly have a right to ban this and ought to too

Absolam · 20-09-2016 12:32PM

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

that's why why the religious oppress women by prohibiting them from wearing anything save for clothing which has all the style of a refuse sack, the state needs to step in and stop them - so that the reasonable freedoms guaranteed by the state are not subverted.

Wait, the State needs to stop people oppressing others by telling them what to wear by.... telling the same people what to wear? It's just not oppression when it's a State doing it?

robindch · 20-09-2016 12:57PM

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

Absolam wrote: »

Wait, the State needs to stop people oppressing others by telling them what to wear by.... telling the same people what to wear?

Nope. Not by "telling people what to wear", but by telling them what not to wear - a subtle and completely asymmetric difference which seems, perennially, to escape the notice of people who believe that it's fine to oppress women using the burka.

Nick Park · 20-09-2016 01:08PM

robindch wrote: »

Nope. Not by "telling people what to wear", but by telling them what not to wear - a subtle and completely asymmetric difference which seems, perennially, to escape the notice of people who believe that it's fine to oppress women using the burka.

It's probably wiser not to lecture others about subtle and asymmetric differences when you genuinely can't distinguish between the following:

a) "If women freely choose to wear a burka then they should be permitted to do so."
b) "I'm fine with oppressing women with the burka."

(I have assumed that you are genuinely unable to make the distinction, rather than concluding that you were deliberately misrepresenting the views of others.)

Absolam · 20-09-2016 01:09PM

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Nope. Not by "telling people what to wear", but by telling them what not to wear - a subtle and completely asymmetric difference which seems, perennially, to escape the notice of people who believe that it's fine to oppress women using the burka.

That's a tricky assertion... I don't think we've had anyone here actually say they believe that it's fine to oppress women using the burka, have we? So I'm not sure how you know it's escaped their notice. Still, I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice that if you tell someone what not to wear, then you're telling them they can only wear whatever is not prohibited. Subtly or asymmetrically as you like, they're still being told what to wear...

silverharp · 20-09-2016 01:56PM

Absolam wrote: »

notice that if you tell someone what not to wear, then you're telling them they can only wear whatever is not prohibited. Subtly or asymmetrically as you like, they're still being told what to wear...

I doubt many see it that way, in Germany for example you cant wear Nazi uniforms in public, does anyone there ponder that the state is telling them what to wear or by exception what not to wear? if a state was telling people what to wear one might expect a list of acceptable clothes?
On the other hand most Muslim women in a Muslim country would be far more aware of what is "permitted" to wear.

smacl · 20-09-2016 05:19PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Nick Park wrote: »

I favour choice as freely as possible in every area where it doesn't hurt anyone else.

And most human rights groups would be with you in regard to the burqa ban, as per the the Ghent study. The final paragraph is close to my own take on the situation;

As the French Human Rights League put it: “Wearing the full veil could be a “voluntary thralldom, as many testimonies attest. In this case, freedom may not be imposed through coercion but rather result from education, social conditions and personal choice: one cannot emancipate people against their own free will; one might only provide them with the conditions for their emancipation”.
The issue of consent is a complex one. Muslim women who veil themselves (most of the time, occasionally, in specific situations,…) have to navigate through their community, family and personal relationships, which are ridden with power relations. To tackle such a tricky issue, public authorities have to rely on scientific data, not on common sense or prejudice, and take human rights and the democratic process seriously.

Thing is, reading other authors such as Fadala Amara, I'm not convinced that the 'voluntary thralldom' referred to is indeed voluntary in many cases. Similarly, there doesn't appear to be any other efforts towards emancipation, either from within Western Muslim communities or from without.

Qs · 20-09-2016 05:39PM

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Matthew 7:5 :rolleyes:Couldn't agree more - that's why why the religious oppress women by prohibiting them from wearing anything save for clothing which has all the style of a refuse sack, the state needs to step in and stop them - so that the reasonable freedoms guaranteed by the state are not subverted.

Those women can leave that religion if they want. That is their free choice within a democratic republic. If they choose to be part of a religion that has idiotic and deeply misogynistic rules about what they can wear then thats their choice too.

KingBrian2 · 20-09-2016 06:03PM

I'm religious and support the ban

What is foolish in any debate on this subject is claiming that the west is out to get the Muslims when they wear these garbs. Secular Republics & Kingdoms are looking out for the best interests of their populations so when you hear accusations of Islamophobia it comes across as hollow since the talk is not of restricting Muslims from practicing Islam. Far from it is the dangers posed by the Islamists who want to attack secular values that is at stake here and the Hijab is a symbol of oppression for many in Europe.

Nick Park · 20-09-2016 06:57PM

smacl wrote: »

And most human rights groups would be with you in regard to the burqa ban, as per the the Ghent study. The final paragraph is close to my own take on the situation;

Thing is, reading other authors such as Fadala Amara, I'm not convinced that the 'voluntary thralldom' referred to is indeed voluntary in many cases. Similarly, there doesn't appear to be any other efforts towards emancipation, either from within Western Muslim communities or from without.

I hadn't mentioned Human Rights, but Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does guarantee the right to manifest one's religion.

Certainly some women are forced to wear a burka, and that is in itself a Human Rights violation that should be addressed. But if even one woman voluntarily chooses to wear a burka as a manifestation of her religion then the Belgian ban becomes a Human Rights violation.

looksee · 20-09-2016 06:59PM

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

Nick Park wrote: »

I hadn't mentioned Human Rights, but Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does guarantee the right to manifest one's religion.

Certainly some women are forced to wear a burka, and that is in itself a Human Rights violation that should be addressed. But if even one woman voluntarily chooses to wear a burka as a manifestation of her religion then the Belgian ban becomes a Human Rights violation.

But a Burka is not a manifestation of religion, it is a cultural preference.

Nick Park · 20-09-2016 07:04PM

looksee wrote: »

But a Burka is not a manifestation of religion, it is a cultural preference.

Really? And who gets to decide that? Surely the practitioners of a religion have the freedom to decide what they feel is a manifestation of it or not.

I have talked to Muslim women, including some that are highly educated and articulate, who feel very strongly that wearing a burka is a manifestation of their religion. What right do you have to tell them that they are wrong and that their religious convictions are cultural because you say so?

looksee · 20-09-2016 07:06PM

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

I feel that going naked is a manifestation of my religion, but I think I would quickly find myself in trouble if I headed out shopping in that state of undress.

Absolam · 21-09-2016 12:14AM

I'm religious and support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

I doubt many see it that way, in Germany for example you cant wear Nazi uniforms in public, does anyone there ponder that the state is telling them what to wear or by exception what not to wear? if a state was telling people what to wear one might expect a list of acceptable clothes?
On the other hand most Muslim women in a Muslim country would be far more aware of what is "permitted" to wear.

I don't doubt many see it that way at all

Yes, I'd say anyone who wants to wear Nazi uniforms in public in Germany feels the State is telling them what to wear, and not by exception but quite specifically what not to wear; they're not to wear Nazi uniforms in public. You might expect the list of acceptable clothes to be 'anything other than Nazi uniforms' or 'anything other than clothing that covers the face other than safety wear'. One might expect all sorts of things I suppose, but you can be certain if you don't wear the clothing you're allowed to wear in France, Germany, or a Muslim country, you stand a good chance of being arrested.

Absolam · 21-09-2016 12:23AM

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Thing is, reading other authors such as Fadala Amara, I'm not convinced that the 'voluntary thralldom' referred to is indeed voluntary in many cases. Similarly, there doesn't appear to be any other efforts towards emancipation, either from within Western Muslim communities or from without.

Perhaps it's because contrary to your own opinion, in their opinion they're not in any kind of thralldom at all, and therefore don't want or need to be emancipated; they are (or would be if not for the State) wearing what they would choose to wear.

Hotblack Desiato · 21-09-2016 12:30AM

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

Qs wrote: »

Those women can leave that religion if they want. That is their free choice within a democratic republic.

That's rather... naive.

You don't have to read this forum for long to come across stories of slight to severe familial disapproval for not going to mass, not getting married in the right kind of church, not baptising their children etc. This in western, supposedly secular 21st century Ireland, and in relation to a religion which does not prescribe the death penalty for apostates.

The latter doesn't often happen in the west, thankfully, but no-one should have to make a choice between no longer keeping up the outward manifestations of a belief, and maintaining contact and good relations with their family and community.

Absolam · 21-09-2016 12:31AM

I'm religious and support the ban

looksee wrote: »

But a Burka is not a manifestation of religion, it is a cultural preference.

That's not a terribly convincing argument; Muslims who are born and raised in western cultures do choose to wear the burka, and it's because of their religion they're wearing it. Religion and culture are certainly intertwined and influence each other, but I don't think you can separate the Burka from Islam.

Absolam · 21-09-2016 12:40AM

I'm religious and support the ban

KingBrian2 wrote: »

What is foolish in any debate on this subject is claiming that the west is out to get the Muslims when they wear these garbs.

Oh, I don't think anyone is saying the west is out to get Muslims; but I do think it's fair to say that certain States are acting oppressively against Muslims, like France.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Secular Republics & Kingdoms are looking out for the best interests of their populations so when you hear accusations of Islamophobia it comes across as hollow since the talk is not of restricting Muslims from practicing Islam. Far from it is the dangers posed by the Islamists who want to attack secular values that is at stake here and the Hijab is a symbol of oppression for many in Europe.

I think even in Ireland we'd debate to what degree our secular Republic has looked out for the best interests of their population. The fact is, governments are composed of politicians who look out for their own best interests by and large. My own feeling, which I stated at the very beginning of this thread, is that French politicians passed this ban in order to look like they were 'dealing' with the Muslim problem in France, without actually going to the effort of dealing with any real problem at all.

Absolam · 21-09-2016 12:52AM

I'm religious and support the ban

looksee wrote: »

I feel that going naked is a manifestation of my religion, but I think I would quickly find myself in trouble if I headed out shopping in that state of undress.

I'd be inclined to say you should be allowed walk around naked if you want, whether or not it's a manifestation of your religion. The fact that you're not (and the reason you're not has nothing to do with your religion, unlike the Burka ban which we know was specifically put in place to prevent people practicing their religion) isn't really a justification for limiting someone else's freedom though, is it?

Absolam · 21-09-2016 01:09AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's rather... naive. You don't have to read this forum for long to come across stories of slight to severe familial disapproval for not going to mass, not getting married in the right kind of church, not baptising their children etc. This in western, supposedly secular 21st century Ireland, and in relation to a religion which does not prescribe the death penalty for apostates. The latter doesn't often happen in the west, thankfully, but no-one should have to make a choice between no longer keeping up the outward manifestations of a belief, and maintaining contact and good relations with their family and community.

I think it's far more naive to say that forcing people not to outwardly manifest their beliefs in such a fashion in any way protects any freedoms guaranteed by the State. It obviously curtails liberty and the manifestation of religious opinion which are set out in the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen and I've yet to see a cogent argument that any freedoms are protected as a result, notwithstanding the ECHRs agreement that the barrier raised against others by a veil concealing the face in public could undermine the notion of “living together”... a notion which is conspicuously absent from the freedoms set out by the Republic.

Burka ban

Comments