Burka ban

Absolam wrote: »

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.

there is no list , If I want to get a regulated service for example I can normally see a list of approved suppliers or some marker to know which is permitted to use. Im sure you can understand the contrast between a Muslim woman in a Muslim country who has to carefully consider what she has to wear and someone in the West who as a rule does not.

silverharp wrote: »

there is no list , If I want to get a regulated service for example I can normally see a list of approved suppliers or some marker to know which is permitted to use. Im sure you can understand the contrast between a Muslim woman in a Muslim country who has to carefully consider what she has to wear and someone in the West who as a rule does not.

So you would be wrong to expect a list then? I thought as much. I'm puzzled as to what you think the relevence of your contrast is though; are you saying it's ok to tell Muslim women they can't wear something in France because in other countries they also say they can't wear something? Do they provide lists over there?

Absolam wrote: »

So you would be wrong to expect a list then? I thought as much. I'm puzzled as to what you think the relevence of your contrast is though; are you saying it's ok to tell Muslim women they can't wear something in France because in other countries they also say they can't wear something? Do they provide lists over there?

no , just highlighting the difference between marginally limiting a freedom in the west versus socially coercive system of thinking in a muslim country. Do you support the idea that the State can never have an opinion on what people wear or how they present themselves if its deemed to be for the social good or possible benefit of that individual?

smacl wrote: »

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

Some truly frightening information in that video. Although I would point out that the part where the infants don't see their mother only applies in public (or with non-family members in private). Still terrible, but it was not stated in the video.

recedite wrote: »

Liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Of these three founding principles, fraternity could be described in a more modern way as "social cohesion" or "living together". Anyone who has ever shared their personal living space with others is well aware that some small personal freedoms have to be sacrificed in order for everyone to get along together. Therefore, the French republican notion of fraternity puts limits on the notion of freedom.
Equality, according to the ECHR doesn't come into the argument in this case, although the Oxford academic in that link was trying to argue as per smacl's opinion that it should.

Actually, I was thinking of the specific freedoms set out in the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen, but sure, the ruling also tramples on liberty and equality in an attempt to force the appearance of equality so I guess they feature too.

looksee wrote: »

I was horrified by that video too, but while I fully accept that the burka is indeed a prison for many/most (there will always be the exception to everything) the point that it weighed 7 kilos cannot be correct? I have just weighed two double, heavy quality cotton sheets and they weigh 1.6k. Ok, its a detail, but its one I can check.

On the other hand I wonder why the woman at 1.18 has a number marked on her hand? Identification perhaps?

That is a fair point. Although maybe it takes into account clothes under the outer burqa or a particular version of burqa that is extremely heavy but maybe not universal for burqas. Or a decimal point was missing.

Point of number on hand. No idea. What is surprising is bare hands at all. Gloves are also common as hands might be pretty and encourage men to rape them, which is the woman's fault by Islamic standards.

recedite wrote: »

7kg when wet? I dunno. But 6-8kg is about the average (normal Irish type) washing machine recommended maximum load, and I'd imagine the full garment including headgear would fill a washing machine on its own.

Interesting point if wet, especially if not designed to be waterproof. I have not encountered anyone wearing a burqa personally in Ireland (niqabs yes) so I cannot say what the material is like, and I am sure there are many variants out there, depending on culture.

Absolam wrote: »

Why would I support it, when you seem to be encouraging States to infringe on freedoms rather than protecting them?

because its not an absolute either or proposition and I wouldnt be persuaded either way by possible slippery slope arguments. I can see possible good reasons to limit a particular right for the public good.

recedite wrote: »

So it is a cultural thing, rather than a religious thing. it has no basis in the Koran. The Koran merely forbids women from going topless.

If I were you I would be very careful about using this as an argument, as it is quite likely to come back and bite you in the ass.

For example, there are many elements in Catholicism which it could be argued are not in the Bible and are cultural adaptations. How would you feel if these were to maintained in public buildings on the grounds that, as cultural rather than religious things, they are perfectly compatible with a secular State?

The fact is that religions evolve. And if the adherents to a faith (or a sect within a faith, as is the Burka with groups within Islam) feel that something is a religious manifestation then it is a religious manifestation. Whether you feel they are justified in reaching that conclusion, or whether it is contained in a holy book or not doesn't actually define whether it is religious or cultural.

Personally I think the burka is a horrible tradition. I would be much happier if no-one wanted to wear it. But I also want to live in a society where people are free to do things I don't like (just so long as they don't hurt or abuse others in the process).

recedite wrote: »

In its natural habitat, the desert, this would be less of an issue. This only adds weight (pun intended) to the idea that in Europe it is a culturally and climatologically ridiculous and inappropriate garment.

It shares that stupidity with the Ramadan idea of fasting during daylight hours, which during the summer solstice, is a neverending period of time in some northern countries.

But unlike the Ramadan fasting requirement, the Burqa predates Islam. It was originally just a uniform imposed on harem girls by their owners, to be worn whenever they ventured outside. Then later adopted by men of lower status for their wives. So it is a cultural thing, rather than a religious thing. it has no basis in the Koran. The Koran merely forbids women from going topless.

Oh I have said that before, the burqa and niqab are political and social not religious garb. Hence my stance on this tread.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

The reasons for defending the burqa is on religious grounds typically with an outright threat that women will suffer if it is prohibited due to religious observance. (secular state should not interfere with private faith kind of thing).
This is a lie, although because most muslims have little clue about their religion it can be believed by some as true. A little education by Imams would solve this.
Excluding that single defence the burqa can be banned easily as just another face cover, just like a bike helmet. The sole difference is the religious baggage that they try to lump onto it. The reason they lump it on in the west is political as it is neither required or even mentioned in the quran.

Give an example for catholicism that meets the same criteria that would be a problem. We can discuss it then.

interesting angle , I tend to be more of the view that it doesn't matter because religion is subjective and there is no point in the state having a view either way. We would be in a new space if the state was issuing religious fatwas . would you not be setting a precedent for saying religious adhearments carry more weight and deserve more protection? for instance a western country banning halal meat if its decided it doesn't meet a county's standard of animal husbandry?

recedite wrote: »

Certain "religious practices" (or practices that have been claimed at times to be religious) are banned, such as ritual slaughter of animals at home, or female genital mutilation. But that is because they were illegal under combined existing laws, and no derogation was allowed on religious grounds.

When it comes to banning some religious practice that is not otherwise illegal, its a different scenario. It would be easy to ban, say, certain types of clothing or jewelry in a school or workplace unless the wearer claimed a religious reason for wearing them. Then it becomes tricky.

I think its going to pop up in the future for different reasons. Muslims might lobby for exam times to be moved or what a Muslim will do or not do in certain jobs or requests for time off. I tend to veer towards a general principle of not affording any official expectation of accommodation unless an employer wants to and a non non muslim might reasonably expect.