Burka ban

smacl wrote: »

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.

I think we have to bear in mind what happens if you refuse to pay the fine, or participate in the citizenship education. Ultimately this rule, "thou shalt not wear a burka", is backed with the threat of force. That;s the whole point of making it a law.

I agree that the threat of force may be less immediate, and less arbitrary, than the force which we suppose to be applied in some cases to compel women to wear burkas, but so what? "We are not so violent as men who abuse their wives and daughters" is hardly a defence of, or justification for, the use or threat of violence.

smacl wrote: »

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.

I think it's a big jump from saying "Islam does not mandate the use of the burka" to saying "women who wear burka are acting against the mandates of their religion"; the latter does not follow from the former.

I also think you may overstate the role of the imams here. If we're right in thinking that men are forcing their wives and daughters to wear burkas, well, we know enough about domestic abuse in other contexts to know that abusing men don't often require an authority figure to validate their abuse, and certainly don't engage in abuse because they are encouraged to by an authority figure.

My inclination is to see the phenomenon of men using violence to control how women dress as a particular example of a wider problem of the violent oppression of women that is all too familiar, and all too well-established, in western society, and I refuse to buy into the notion that in this particular case it's appropriate to address the problem by legal sanctions directed at the victims. You wouldn't hesitate, I think, to reject that approach if we tried to apply it to other victims of domestic violence. It's only considered in this case because of the persistent "othering" of Muslims, and of Muslim women in particular, in our society. You only have to look at some of the people who tog out in favour of burka bans to see this connection.

smacl wrote: »

Nor from a moment did I suggest that it was, having already adequately outlined why I'm in favour of the ban with what I believe to be well supported argument. The point was to illustrate the difference between a minor fine versus incarceration and brutality. Going back to my previous post, would you dispute that the burka is being used as an instrument of oppression to some women in France, as has been claimed?

I would not. Would you dispute that burka bans are being used by some as an instrument of oppression?

smacl wrote: »

No, though in my opinion the hardship faced by those oppressed through having to wear the burka is far more brutal than by those who are banned from wearing it. Even the Ghent study that is strongly against the ban draws the conclusion that burkas are culturally inappropriate and do not have a place in France and is more concerned that their prohibition is forceful rather than voluntary.

I also reckon that you have extremists on both sides of the divide attempting to polarise the middle and the burka has become a rallying point for both sides. It seems reasonable to take it out of the equation for this reason as well to diffuse this situation even if it might suggest acquiescing to the frothing right to some extent.

If you do ban the burka will the women you mention who are oppressed into wearing be any less oppressed? If they are so oppressed that they wear the burka when they dont want to do you think a law that outlaws it will have any effect on them? I can see one of three things happening:

1. They continue to wear the burka despite the ban because they are more afraid of their husbands than the law
2. They stop wearing the burka because the law is more oppressive than their husbands. Congratulations, you have now created a law that oppresses muslim women more than the fundamentalists you oppose.
2. Women who are forced to wear the burka will not be allowed to leave the house.

smacl wrote: »

I think so, yes.



I don't agree. Remember Islam is a very law abiding religion which mandates against breaking local laws. The thinking from my reading to date is that where the woman is being forced to wear the burka by the husband, the husband now has to act against the law and hence his religion to do so, which marks him in his own community. The sanctions for forcing someone else to wear a burka are serious, and the abusive husband is very exposed in this scenario in that he not only risks being reported by his spouse but also by his peers.

The case where the woman wears the burka by her own volition, she is also acting against her religion and should be discouraged on that basis. The sanctions however are very modest.

As I've repeated a number of times on this threads, this direction should really be coming from the Imams and is in many cases.

I'd be interested in hearing that if you accept that burkas are being used as an instrument of oppression against some women, whether the burka is appropriate for Western society and if not how you'd tackle the issue?

I think you overestimate how much the fundamentalists agree that local law trumps their own interpretation of islam.

To answer your 3 questions:

I'd be interested in hearing that if you accept that burkas are being used as an instrument of oppression against some women,

I think this is a given.

whether the burka is appropriate for Western society

I dont think it is inappropriate for any society. If somebody wants to wear it for religious reasons then i dont think the law should interfere.

and if not how you'd tackle the issue?

If the issue you refer to is the oppression of muslim women being forced to wear the burka then you tackle it from the side of the oppressor, not the oppressed

smacl wrote: »

How exactly? The law relating for coercing someone into wearing a burka already carries stiff penalties, but think about the dangers a Muslim woman would potentially face making that accusation against her family?

How is any domestic abuse handled by the police? For me though that has to be the direction to approach it from. Criminalising the women doesn't help them.

smacl wrote: »

With respect, from what I've read of Fadela Amara, I think domestic abuse is largely ignored in the poorer French banlieues even though it is very common. When I see a comment, such as that from imam Hassen Chalghoumi, which states that "the burqa is a prison for women, a tool of sexist domination and Islamist indoctrination", it seems reasonable to want to restrict it.

What is also worth considering is that the burka can trap a woman in the ghetto as it is scorned by broader society. While you might say that this is a problem for broader society, until such time as attitudes change, it remains a problem for the woman. If she's coerced into wearing the burka, it leaves her between a rock and a hard place.

well then perhaps the police should start to take notice of it. If the police are failing then THEY need to act. We do not punish the women involved because the police will not do their job.

smacl wrote: »

Easier said than done. Following on from the 2005 riots, there remain significant tensions between the police and poorer Muslim communities in the banlieues. One problem I do have with the ban, more so than limiting the right of religious expression to some women, is that it adds to this tension and panders to some extent to the far right.

well that is a problem for the french police to resolve. I do believe that it is the correct approach. It would attempting to help the women involved instead of criminalising them.

smacl wrote: »

Problem with that is in practice it means doing nothing different as the police have always had the power and mandate to deal with all and any domestic violence yet been unable to achieve a positive outcome in this scenario. if you accept that significant hardship is being suffered by those women coerced into wearing the burka than a different approach is clearly needed. As previously posted, I think the last paragraph in the Ghent study pretty much hits the nail on the head;



Banning the burka may well not have an immediate positive outcome, but it forces necessary change in a deadlocked situation. While you might complain about denying certain Muslim women full freedom of religious expression, other Muslim women in the West are being denied very many more freedoms when compared to their peers.

I would have though the statement 'It is very easy to hide despicable values of gender inequality behind the pretense of so called individual freedom of religion' would have very string resonances in this country, given its recent history.

It definitely will not have an immediate positive outcome. The only immediate outcome will be a negative outcome against the women you say you are trying to help. If you think a community will buckle under because of fines you are very much mistaken.

smacl wrote: »

The more worrying negative outcome by all accounts is radicalising of disenfranchised Muslims by terrorist groups, which was always the risk and in turn favours the hard right and increased Islamophobia.
.

Well i am glad you realise that banning the burka could potentially make things much worse.

smacl wrote: »

Interesting your shift from the interests of the individual woman there to that of a community under siege. I think it is exactly that kind of polarisation we're seeing in play here. On the basis that multiculturalism has failed in this scenario, leading to ghettoization, the combined society needs to become more intercultural, which in my opinion can only be resolved by significant compromise on both sides.

If you introduce a law that only targets one section of a community then that community is naturally going to feel under siege. If you banned the wearing of kippahs in public do you think the jewish community would feel under siege?


What problem do you think banning the burka will solve?

smacl wrote: »

For all the reasons already stated and repeated in this thread that wearing a burka in Western society is culturally inappropriate and is regularly used as an instrument of oppression against some Muslim women. Freedom of religious expression does not trump freedom to abuse others.

Well i have certainly seen it stated that it is culturally appropriate. My response to that is "so what". A woman wearing a burka doesnt affect my life in any way so if they WANT to wear one then i have no issue and the state has no business interfering in that decision. I'm very liberal that way. The other side of it I have already discussed. Solve the problem from the correct end. Banning them does not solve that problem or make women any less oppressed.

smacl wrote: »

The argument in favour of the burka, in my opinion, has a lot in common with NRA rhetoric in the states when it comes to personal freedom above all else.

Let me be clear that i have advanced no argument in favour of the burka. I have nothing in common with the NRAs stance on pretty much everything. Let us keep the discussion to what WE are discussing.