Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Burka ban

1132133135137138

Comments

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Danish Parliament votes to ban the burka in public:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/danish-parliament-votes-to-ban-veils-in-public-1.3515414
    Denmark has joined France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria in banning the burka, niqab and other face coverings in public.

    On Thursday the Danish parliament backed a ban, to come into effect from August 1st, by 75 votes to 30 with 74 absentees. The ban was backed by the ruling liberal-conservative coalition parties, the far-right People’s Party and the opposition Social Democrats.

    From August violating the ban will result in a 1,000 kroner (€134) fine for the first offence and up to 10 times that for four or more breaches. The government in Copenhagen insists the law targets face covering in general and is not aimed at any religion. It does not outlaw headscarves, turbans or the traditional Jewish Kippa. Ahead of the vote, justice minister Søren Pape Poulsen said Danish police would not forcibly remove veils from women. “I do not want police officers pulling items of clothing off people – burkas or otherwise,” he told the Politiken daily. “That is not going to happen.” Instead the woman will be asked to go home, if she lives nearby, or brought to a police station to be collected by a family member.

    The Danish People’s Party, campaigning for a ban for a decade, had proposed prison sentences for breaching the bill, but this was removed from the final draft. It said the veils were “incompatible with Danish culture and the foundations on which Denmark is built” and that it was “always Danish to protect Denmark”.

    In 2011 France became the first European country to legislate against face coverings in public and Austria the most recent country to follow suit last October. The Austrian ban, forcing people to show their face from forehead to chin, was loosened during the winter. Police were told to be more lenient towards people covering up against the cold. A similar provision exists in the new Danish law.

    No recent figures exist over how many women actually wear the burka or niqab in Denmark. The most recent figures, from 2010, show a maximum of 200 women wearing the niqab, the full veil with a slit for the eyes, and the burka, a full veil with a mesh screen for the eyes. Human rights groups were critical of the ban, saying it went beyond what was needed for public safety and would exclude some Muslim women from public life.

    “All women should be free to dress as they please and to wear clothing that expresses their identity or beliefs,” said Ms Gauri van Gulik, Europe director of Amnesty International. “The law criminalises women for their choice of clothing and in so doing flies in the face of those freedoms Denmark purports to uphold.”


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


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

    https://www.ft.com/content/27ae4746-7952-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d?emailId=5b321815ac0406000414e447&segmentId=488e9a50-190e-700c-cc1c-6a339da99cab
    Lawmakers in the upper house of parliament passed a measure on partial face coverings on Tuesday that imposes a €400 fine on Muslim women who wear the burka or niqab in government buildings.  The Netherlands joins Denmark, Austria, France, Belgium and Bulgaria in outlawing the face veil amid rising anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe. 

    The Dutch government, which has prided itself on protecting individual freedoms, argues the ban is “partial” and not as extensive as that adopted in other countries. It will apply on public transport, public buildings, schools and hospitals, with exceptions allowed for clothes that are designed to protect health and safety. Exemptions are also made for women who wear the burka during “festive or cultural” activities and will not apply to people visiting relatives in hospitals. Full-face helmets will also be outlawed under the ban.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,811 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    As a motorcyclist, the last sentence has me going W....T...actual...F.... :confused:

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    As a motorcyclist, the last sentence has me going W....T...actual...F.... :confused:
    .....wearing one outlawed inside public buildings.

    A Green party fruitcake says this will stop muslim wimmin from swimming.
    "It is completely disproportionate and the only effect will be that many of these women will stay at home even more," said Green Party senator Ruard Ganzevoort.
    "They will not have an opportunity to go to school. They will not have an opportunity to go to learn to swim, and all those things."
    I don't know why they refuse to wear a lycra Kippah like everyone else.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,659 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    As a motorcyclist, the last sentence has me going W....T...actual...F.... :confused:
    What puzzles you about it? Is it the notion that it is simply incomprehensible that a white man might have his freedom restricted in the same way as a woman from a minority community?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,811 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Never mind, I thought it said they were to be banned entirely which would be insane on safety grounds.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,659 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Never mind, I thought it said they were to be banned entirely which would be insane on safety grounds.
    Ah, right.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47380058


    Decathlon drops plans to sell a "sports hijab" in France.

    They haven't said whether the Newtownards store will sell it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24 SaifUllah


    The Burka Ban is just more racism and Islamaphobia.
    Disgusting - white men again dictating what Muslim women may wear.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,950 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    SaifUllah wrote: »
    The Burka Ban is just more racism and Islamaphobia.
    Disgusting - white men again dictating what Muslim women may wear.

    I don't agree for a number ofreasons;
    • Many of the entirely reasonable arguments supporting the ban come from feminists of various nationalities, so this is not a dictate coming solely from white men. As a reference to this, I'd recommend Fadala Amara's Breaking the silence.
    • Islam is not a race, so while you could reasonably say the burka ban is Islamaphobic, which I agree it is an extent, it is not racist.
    • My opinion is that clothing restrictions imposed upon Muslim women but not men through their religious tradition are anti-egalitarian and deny important freedoms from Muslim women that Muslim men and everyone else in Western society enjoy. From first hand experience raising two teen age girls with Muslim friends in their class, I know a couple of Muslim girls were very bitter about being denied the freedoms their friends enjoyed. Ireland just a few short decades ago was an extremely misogynistic and homophobic country, and this was something that was perpetuated by the Catholic church. I think as a result we're extremely wary of discrimination being protected by religious tradition. I suspect many people, myself included, see the burka as exactly this type of discrimination, and while I fully respect freedom of religious expression I don't accept that this should be allowed at the cost of protected discrimination. It is perhaps worth remembering that clothing restrictions placed on women in Islam were placed there by Islamic men.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,826 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    SaifUllah wrote: »
    The Burka Ban is just more racism and Islamaphobia.
    Disgusting - white men again dictating what Muslim women may wear.

    More or less disgusting than Muslim men dictating what Muslim women must wear?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24 SaifUllah


    More or less disgusting than Muslim men dictating what Muslim women must wear?

    The burka is entirely by choice - less of the Islamaphobic nonsense above please.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,249 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    SaifUllah wrote: »
    The burka is entirely by choice - less of the Islamaphobic nonsense above please.

    Bullsh1t, Mr Ham, man.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,797 ✭✭✭tretorn


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    SaifUllah wrote: »
    The burka is entirely by choice - less of the Islamaphobic nonsense above please.


    Is the Burka by choice really when Muslim women appear to have much less choice than men.

    How come we never really hear from Muslim women, how much of a role do they really have in the making of laws in Muslim countries. How is it a free choice whether to wear a burka or now when not wearing one brings shame on your family.

    If you dont like the idea of modern European countries banning the burka then really you have the choice to uproot yourself and go live in a country where the vast majority of women want to wear a burka. Also, if the burka is such a good choice why dont men wear it too.

    I would recommend the Book, The Wind in My hair, its about a womans right for freedom to live the life she wants in Iran.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,811 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    SaifUllah wrote: »
    The burka is entirely by choice

    Yeah right.
    less of the Islamaphobic nonsense above please.

    It's not "islamophobia" to point out some of the many unpleasant facts about that particularly nasty religion.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,659 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    More or less disgusting than Muslim men dictating what Muslim women must wear?
    Not fundamentally different from that.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,578 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    SaifUllah wrote: »
    The Burka Ban is just more racism and Islamaphobia.
    Disgusting - white men again dictating what Muslim women may wear.

    Seems racist to assume there are no white Muslim men, I'm sure plenty of white men also dictate what Muslim women may where by forcing them to wear a burka


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,578 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    SaifUllah wrote: »
    The burka is entirely by choice - less of the Islamaphobic nonsense above please.

    Just like women being banned from driving in certain regions is entirely by choice?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,659 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Seems racist to assume there are no white Muslim men, I'm sure plenty of white men also dictate what Muslim women may where by forcing them to wear a burka
    If a burka ban is legislated, we don't have to "assume" or "be sure" that white men are involved in dictating to women how to dress, and compelling obedience to their dictates with the threat or use of force; we can watch them do it in public, and on the record.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,950 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    tretorn wrote: »
    Is the Burka by choice really when Muslim women appear to have much less choice than men.

    How come we never really hear from Muslim women, how much of a role do they really have in the making of laws in Muslim countries. How is it a free choice whether to wear a burka or now when not wearing one brings shame on your family.

    If you dont like the idea of modern European countries banning the burka then really you have the choice to uproot yourself and go live in a country where the vast majority of women want to wear a burka. Also, if the burka is such a good choice why dont men wear it too.

    I would recommend the Book, The Wind in My hair, its about a womans right for freedom to live the life she wants in Iran.

    I think there are very strong arguments on both sides. Eva Brem's work is interesting here, though the only copy I could find was behind a pay wall. The open society foundations "Unveiling the truth" also makes for an interesting read as does the Ghent study by Marie Haspeslagh which comes out against a burka ban. From the conclusion of that study
    As a consequence of the above insights, my opinion is that whatever the decision of the European Court will be, one should realize this decision will not solve the underlying problem of growing Islamophobia present in the Western society, of which the decisions by nation states to install a burqa-ban is a mere symptom. Instead of using means of repressive criminal sanctions
    that have a counterproductive and stigmatizing effect, we have to address these problems of intercultural tension from a broader constructive community view point. The mere use of laws won’t create social harmony and won’t cure the diseases of an unhealthy community.
    This means dialogue and discussion should be stimulated with the Muslim community in order to diminish polarization. Furthermore, reinforcement of civic education should make young Muslim women aware of gender equality and liberal values. Also, the Islamic teachers, imams, Muslim parents, Muslim organizations and individual Muslims that all together shape the Muslim community, should take up their responsibilities. They should encourage adhering to a form of religious manifestation of Islam and the values that come with it, that does not provoke conflict with the embedded norms and values of a liberal democratic society. One could call it a modern ‘European Islam’. It is very easy to hide despicable values of gender inequality behind the pretense of so called individual freedom of religion. Stimulate a modern European form of Islam is the only way to truly liberate the oppressed Muslim women from their patriarchal culture.

    While I don't believe society should have to legislate for a ban, prohibiting the wearing of burkas should be happening at a voluntary level in Europe at the behest of Islamic leadership in the west. Given that this has not happened nor looks like happening I have no issue with a ban happening through democratic process. I personally do believe that Islam discriminates against women, just as Catholicism has in the past in Ireland, and should not be given free reign in this regard.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,826 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    SaifUllah wrote: »
    The burka is entirely by choice - less of the Islamaphobic nonsense above please.

    If it is entirely by choice, then why is it only a very few sects of one religion that have the burka?
    The burka is inherently tied to certain Islamic subcultures.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,826 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Not fundamentally different from that.

    Only in the same way getting a poke in the cheek is not fundamentally different to getting a right hook to the face, but I know which one hurts significantly more.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,953 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    SaifUllah wrote: »
    The burka is entirely by choice - less of the Islamaphobic nonsense above please.

    tell that to women in Iran or the former islamic state.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,950 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    tell that to women in Iran or the former islamic state.

    Don't know if you seen it, but I found Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi to be a highly entertaining account of this, covering her youth growing up in Iran and subsequent move to Europe. Well worth a punt if you've an hour or so to spare.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,953 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    smacl wrote: »
    Don't know if you seen it, but I found Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi to be a highly entertaining account of this, covering her youth growing up in Iran and subsequent move to Europe. Well worth a punt if you've an hour or so to spare.

    I'll give that a look. I watched a news report yesterday of Yazidi women burning the burka that they were forced to wear as sex slaves for islamic state. I'm sure our newest member will tell us that they were wearing it by choice as well.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,659 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Only in the same way getting a poke in the cheek is not fundamentally different to getting a right hook to the face, but I know which one hurts significantly more.
    I'mn not sure what your point is. If the state passes laws about how women must dress, those laws are enforced, ultimately, by the use of force. The whole point about law is that we legitimize violence to enforce it, which is why we need to be careful about what laws we make.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,950 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The whole point about law is that we legitimize violence to enforce it, which is why we need to be careful about what laws we make.

    Strange take on law. I would have said the whole point is that we declare what is and is not acceptable where having to enforce what is unacceptable is the exception. Most of us avoid knowingly breaking laws both to behave in a manner which is acceptable to the society of which we're a part, and to avoid the repercussions that come with unacceptable behavior. We as a society shouldn't ever need to enforce the law with violence on law abiding citizens.

    Edit: I also think Mark Hamill's point is entirely valid, as there is the world of difference between facing a fine and incarceration and/or brutality.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The whole point about law is that we legitimize violence to enforce it, which is why we need to be careful about what laws we make.
    That's an uncharacteristically libertarian view for you to take. Not that I disagree with it since it's quite correct, but but it's not a point often made all the same.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,659 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    smacl wrote: »
    Strange take on law. I would have said the whole point is that we declare what is and is not acceptable where having to enforce what is unacceptable is the exception. Most of us avoid knowingly breaking laws both to behave in a manner which is acceptable to the society of which we're a part, and to avoid the repercussions that come with unacceptable behavior. We as a society shouldn't ever need to enforce the law with violence on law abiding citizens.
    Ultimately, the only way to enforce the law is with violence. I take your point that one purpose of legislating is to guide; you tell people how they are expected to behave in relation to a certain matter on the assumption that they mostly want to know what's expected and want to conform, so enforcement will be exceptional. But another purpose to to declare that we will enforce the expectation, if necessary with violence. It's possible to establish social norms that have considerable traction - e.g. against committing adultery, against using certain offensive terms in speech - wihout legislating them, but when you legislate them you are, at bottom, saying that observance is compulsory, and violations will meet which sanctions up to and including the use of force.
    smacl wrote: »
    Edit: I also think Mark Hamill's point is entirely valid, as there is the world of difference between facing a fine and incarceration and/or brutality.
    I gotta tell you that incarceration is pretty brutal. Plus, "thou shalt not wear a burka" laws apply to all women, including those - the great majority - who have never been threatened with brutality over their clothing choices. For those wome the alternative is not between oppression by this group through illegal violence or that group through legal violence; the choice is between not being oppressed at all, or being oppressed by legal violence.

    Essentially, what's going on here is (a) an assumption that any woman who wears a burka does so because she has been threatened with brutaility if she does not, and then (b) legislating to punish her if she yields to that threat. Even if we assume, for the purposes of the argument, that the first assumption is correct, violence against women is a major problem in our society, and we don't generally address it by criminalising those women who give way to violence or the threat of violence. You'll have to work hard to persuade me that this is a genuine attempt to protect Muslim women from violence; it looks to me a lot more like a genuine attempt to enforce conformity by Muslim women to norms which they may not share.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,950 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I gotta tell you that incarceration is pretty brutal.

    I think you mistook the point there P., possibly my bad wording, and agree incarceration is brutal. However, if you look at the penalty for wearing a burka in France for example, it is a fine of €150 and/or participation in a citizenship education program. There is also a fine of €30,000 and one year in prison, for anyone who forces (by violence, threats or by abuse of power) another to wear face coverings; these penalties may be doubled if the victim is under the age of 18.

    Compare that to laws in Iran where women face jail time for not wearing the Hajib, with one woman serving two years in prison for doing so.

    The former law, which you might well decry as interference of personal freedoms, hardly carries brutal sanctions for those found in breach of it. The latter does carry brutal sanctions, so my point stands.

    What is worth remembering is that Islam mandates following local law where it does not come directly into conflict with its teachings. Wearing a burka, while considered admirable in some circles, is not mandated by Islam, thus women who wear one are in effect acting against the mandates of their religion. I think the burka ban, as enacted in France, is cognisant of this, thus the relatively small penalties. Theoretically, it should apply pressure to Imams to make their followers aware of this, yet they seem slow to do so. Were they a bit less intransigent and more forward thinking, they could have helped avoid much of this conflict. The cynic in me is also reminded that these same Imams will not be the ones to suffer the result directly, it being a male only vocation and wearing of the veil being a solely female tradition also instigated by men in the first instance.


Advertisement