Burka ban

Scotty # · 11-04-2011 12:30PM

I'm religious and support the ban

liamw wrote: »

I know, I can't walk around naked in public either

Hardly the same thing. Plus there are many public area's in Ireland and I'm sure France too where you can freely walk around naked.

mikhail · 11-04-2011 12:31PM

I'm religious and support the ban

liamw wrote: »

I know, I can't walk around naked in public either

It's a fair point, though I think this is one of those places where tradition has provided certain boundaries which restrict the rights of the individual for what are ultimately arbitrary reasons. Introducing a law which extends such restrictions is arguably a retrograde step.

mikhail · 11-04-2011 12:34PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Scotty # wrote: »

Hardly the same thing.

Why not?

Plus there are many public area's in Ireland and I'm sure France too where you can freely walk around naked.

Please give an example of a public area (excluding showers/changing rooms) where I can freely wander naked in Ireland.

Please explain why I can't walk naked into work, other than it being a bit nippy.

robindch · 11-04-2011 12:52PM

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

Scotty # wrote: »

Hardly the same thing. Plus there are many public area's in Ireland and I'm sure France too where you can freely walk around naked.

And there are plenty of places in France where, under this legislation, women can wear their Burkas too -- mosques, any non-public place, etc.

Although obviously women must remain within the "Women and Family" area of mosques, and not move about freely.

Do you object to that?

Gregor Samsa · 11-04-2011 12:52PM

I'm religious and support the ban

mikhail wrote: »

Please give an example of a public area (excluding showers/changing rooms) where I can freely wander naked in Ireland.

There's a few nudist swimming spots around the country. None of them have any legal standing, but they're known to the authorities and left to do their own thing. The regular swimmers are very diligent in keeping pervs and voyeurs away.

I ended up in one in Killiney (South Dublin), at the invitation of a friend. It being early spring, I went snorkeling in a wetsuit. I remember sitting on a rock after, taking off my fins, when one of the regulars wandered over to me for a chat, stark naked, whith his hands on his hips. But hey, that's their thing, and more power to them. I'd have no problem with them getting legal protection, they're not doing anyone any harm.

As for the "burka ban", I'm not at all comfortable with a government telling people that they're wearing too much clothes in public.

Mark Hamill · 11-04-2011 01:03PM

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

phutyle wrote: »

As for the "burka ban", I'm not at all comfortable with a government telling people that they're wearing too much clothes in public.

The government isn't telling anyone they cant wear as much clothes as they like, it's telling people they cant cover their faces.

Scotty # · 11-04-2011 01:05PM

I'm religious and support the ban

mikhail wrote: »

Why not?

One is the banning of traditional
attire/customs on a minority group the other is about public decency/morality/sexual misconduct.

There are several nudist public beaches in Ireland. Here's a list for Leinster. http://www.irishnaturism.org/leinster.php

Public nudity is a separate topic and I won't be discussing it any further in this thread.

robindch · 11-04-2011 01:16PM

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

Scotty # wrote: »

One is the banning of traditional
attire/customs on a minority group the other is about public decency/morality/sexual misconduct.

If you ask most islamic fundamentalists, I'd imagine that most would say that sticking sacks over the heads of women is an issue of public decency.

And how do you feel about female genital mutilation? That's a traditional custom too.

Scotty # · 11-04-2011 01:24PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The government isn't telling anyone they cant wear as much clothes as they like, it's telling people they cant cover their faces.

How extremely naive of you.

Under the new law you can wear this in public...

but not this...

Hence the new law has absolutely NOTHING to do with covering the face.

11-04-2011 01:28PM

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

Scotty # wrote: »

Hence the new law has absolutely NOTHING to do with covering the face.

In that case it's a stupid law

I mean it was kind of stupid anyway - those french ghettos have enough trouble with women being isolated and never getting help from local authorities, but this will just keep them at home or attacked by extremists if they go out uncovered.

Scotty # · 11-04-2011 01:28PM

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

And how do you feel about female genital mutilation?

The same as I feel about circumcision within the Jewish community. If that's their custom, who am I to enforce my beliefs upon them.

11-04-2011 01:29PM

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

Scotty # wrote: »

The same as I feel about circumcision within the Jewish community. If that's their custom, who am I to enforce my beliefs upon them.

Mutilation and circumcision are two different matters :mad:

Nodin · 11-04-2011 01:31PM

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

If you ask most islamic fundamentalists, I'd imagine that most would say that sticking sacks over the heads of women is an issue of public decency.

And how do you feel about female genital mutilation? That's a traditional custom too.

And of course cloth covering the face can be easily compared to (picking the worst of the varied practices) removal of the clitoris.

'martyrdom'....theres a word that I'd say will be bandied about a lot.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13031397

How precisely this is supposed to 'aid integration' really does escape me.

eblistic · 11-04-2011 01:39PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Scotty # wrote: »

The same as I feel about circumcision within the Jewish community. If that's their custom, who am I to enforce my beliefs upon them.

So we should tolerate absolutely all behaviour that has roots in religious tradition?

robindch · 11-04-2011 02:03PM

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

Nodin wrote: »

And of course cloth covering the face can be easily compared to (picking the worst of the varied practices) removal of the clitoris.

No, I raised FGM since somebody mentioned that something must be allowed since it's a religious or cultural "tradition".

Nodin wrote: »

How precisely this is supposed to 'aid integration' really does escape me.

It's intended to make it more difficult for religious fanatics to entrench divisions.

And no, it's a far from perfect solution, but the alternative -- to allow oppression -- is unfortunately worse.

.

Nodin · 11-04-2011 02:16PM

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

No, I raised FGM since somebody mentioned that something must be allowed since it's a religious or cultural "tradition".It's intended to make it more difficult for religious fanatics to entrench divisions..

Yes, in much the same way that - in conversations about gay marriage - somebody raises the point that paedophillia 'is also a sexual preference'.

robindch wrote: »

And no, it's a far from perfect solution, but the alternative -- to allow oppression -- is unfortunately worse.

.

..which presumes that the woman is forced to wear it, ignores the oppressive nature of a law which forces a person to abandon an item of clothing, the absence of which will make them feel undressed.....

And of course, the failure to observe the long list of failures to end or curb religion by official sanction and penalty.

Scotty # · 11-04-2011 02:17PM

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

but the alternative -- to allow oppression -- is unfortunately worse.

A. You MUST wear a Burka
B. You MUST NOT wear a Burka

What's the difference?

robindch · 11-04-2011 02:18PM

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

robindch wrote: »

Fun to see three of the main news outlets in the UK and Ireland having to use different photos of the same lady!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13031397
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0411/breaking15.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/04/11/uk-france-veil-ban-idUKTRE7393CF20110411

Ah, it seems to have been from just about the only protest in the country:

Manufacturing news? Hmmm...

Nodin · 11-04-2011 02:22PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Scotty # wrote: »

A. You MUST wear a Burka
B. You MUST NOT wear a Burka

What's the difference?

...in theory a sufficient number of votes won back from the far right for another term, in practice an increased identification with the more extreme form of headcovering as a symbol of resistance against islamophobia.

robindch · 11-04-2011 02:28PM

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

Scotty # wrote: »

A. You MUST wear a Burka
B. You MUST NOT wear a Burka
What's the difference?

The burka is used to signal the successful subjugation of a woman. In this case, the state has no choice but to step in and to guarantee the greatest degree of freedom it can in the circumstances by banning the thing that's used to signal this subjugation.

Nodin · 11-04-2011 02:34PM

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

The burka is used to signal the successful subjugation of a woman..

One of the more ludicrous assertions so far.

robindch wrote: »

In this case, the state has no choice but to step in and to guarantee the greatest degree of freedom it can in the circumstances by banning the thing that's used to signal this subjugation.

"the state" could no more give a rats ass. The politician in need of votes, however, thinks he can gain from kicking the current bete noir.

Morbert · 11-04-2011 02:36PM

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

Scotty # wrote: »

A. You MUST wear a Burka
B. You MUST NOT wear a Burka

What's the difference?

B renders the public subjugation of women illegal.

[edit]-robindch beat me to it.

Nodin · 11-04-2011 02:38PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Morbert wrote: »

B renders the public subjugation of women illegal.

[edit]-robindch beat me to it.

....which takes the simplistic view of culture, people and the religious mentality, presumes they are directly forced to wear same, etc. Transparent nonsense.

Morbert · 11-04-2011 02:38PM

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

Nodin wrote: »

One of the more ludicrous assertions so far.

What? That's clearly what it is. In fact, I hesitate to consider it related to Islam at all. I work with several Muslims, and they find the practice abhorrent and completely against their faith.

robindch · 11-04-2011 02:43PM

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

Nodin wrote: »

robindch wrote:

The burka is used to signal the successful subjugation of a woman.

One of the more ludicrous assertions so far.

I suggest you visit a place like Iran where the political dogfight that surrounds the burka can be seen mostly clearly. Though you'll see it in most other countries where islam is a major religious service provider too.

Nodin wrote: »

"the state" could no more give a rats ass. The politician in need of votes, however, thinks he can gain from kicking the current bete noir.

I'm sorry to hear that you seem to believe that protecting womens' rights is nothing more than a cheap stunt to win votes. I'm sure Sarkozy will win a few votes away from the extreme right, but that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do.

pH · 11-04-2011 02:45PM

Scotty # wrote: »

How extremely naive of you.

Under the new law you can wear this in public...

but not this...

Hence the new law has absolutely NOTHING to do with covering the face.

I have no idea where you're getting your misinformation from.

Here's the law:
"Nul ne peut, dans l'espace public, porter une tenue destinée à dissimuler son visage."

And yes there is an exception:

"L'interdiction prévue à l'article 1er ne s'applique pas si la tenue est prescrite ou autorisée par des dispositions législatives ou réglementaires, si elle est justifiée par des raisons de santé ou des motifs professionnels, ou si elle s'inscrit dans le cadre de pratiques sportives, de fêtes ou de manifestations artistiques ou traditionnelles."

So, no, you can't walk around Paris on a wet Thursday with the 1st mask on (as your post implies), but at some sort of traditional "masqued" festival then it's permitted (as indeed would a niqab be in the context of a festival/fancy dress/halloween).
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000022911670&categorieLien=id

11-04-2011 02:50PM

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

robindch wrote: »

I suggest you visit a place like Iran where the political dogfight that surrounds the burka can be seen mostly clearly. Though you'll see it in most other countries where islam is a major religious service provider too.I'm sorry to hear that you seem to believe that protecting womens' rights is nothing more than a cheap stunt to win votes. I'm sure Sarkozy will win a few votes away from the extreme right, but that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do.

This isn't even remotely protecting women's rights.
It is forcing women to stay housebound or deny them the ability to wear what they want. They have no problem with nudist beaches for example!
I would think they really care about women's rights when they stop forced marriages or assaults on girls not wearing headscarves.

This is still a case of "freedom to wear what we say you should" except now it's being forced by a law.

Mark Hamill · 11-04-2011 02:50PM

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

Scotty # wrote: »

How extremely naive of you.

Under the new law you can wear this in public...

but not this...

Hence the new law has absolutely NOTHING to do with covering the face.

The law bans full face covering for all men and women in public, with exceptions for safety purposes (motorcycle helmets, safety masks) and certain occasional events (carnivals). I may be naive, but I have actually read up on the law.

Nodin · 11-04-2011 02:55PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Morbert wrote: »

What? That's clearly what it is. In fact, I hesitate to consider it related to Islam at all. I work with several Muslims, and they find the practice abhorrent and completely against their faith.

...and unfortunately there are many who consider it a part of theirs. Islam is not a monolith.

Robindich wrote:

I suggest you visit a place like Iran where the political dogfight that surrounds the burka can be seen mostly clearly. .

....Iran, where the shah tried to ban the practice, and created a massive backlash from women themselves?

Robindich wrote:

I'm sorry to hear that you seem to believe that protecting womens' rights is nothing more than a cheap stunt to win votes. .

Hmmm. 'appeal to emotion'? Anyhoo - Given the numbers who actually wear the covering, and given Sarkozys loss of votes to the far right, along with the undercurrent of Islamophobia in France in certain quarters....yes, thats the logical conclusion.

Mark Hamill · 11-04-2011 02:56PM

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

bluewolf wrote: »

This isn't even remotely protecting women's rights.
It is forcing women to stay housebound or deny them the ability to wear what they want.

Then give an alternative.

bluewolf wrote: »

They have no problem with nudist beaches for example!

I dont see anyone using nudist beaches to subjugate women.

bluewolf wrote: »

I would think they really care about women's rights when they stop forced marriages or assaults on girls not wearing headscarves.

I dont know Frances view on arranged marriages, but I would have assumed that assault was against the law as well.

Burka ban

Comments