Burka ban

Moomoo1 wrote: »

But those Jewish women cover their faces of free will.

They aren't, its because of religious indoctrination from some religious teacher. Read the article, the women are wearing face coverings because they think that muslim women are beating them in the modesty stakes and that they must conquer them by being more modest and they have learned this from religious teachers. Like I said, and I'm sure you were listening, the whole concept of religious modesty is nonsense, it just doesn't add up, and people advocating this are just doing it to subjugate women, even to the point of getting women to subjugate themselves.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

Why do you refuse to believe that Muslim women do the same?

I think you misunderstand us, no-one on this side believes that they are doing it of their own free will, we believe that they have been indoctrinated into wearing it, into thinking they need to. Its like battered wives syndrome, a situation were an abused women eventually comes to believe that she deserves the abuse she gets after being punished for so long.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

But those Jewish women cover their faces of free will.

No.

Why do you refuse to believe that Muslim women do the same? Do you have the stats on how many of them actually _want_ to cover their faces?

My opinion on the ban is based on the history of the burka, and the treatment of women in communities who encourage or enforce the burka.

if women are being oppressed in this country, they need to be helped with _real_ help - mainly safe shelter and a chance to start a new life away from their abusers. Crazy bans are good for getting the rabble to vote for you in the elections but do little to help women.

I agree, the ban needs to be coupled with a strong campaign towards the empowerment of women in the face of harmful cultural practices.

Morbert wrote: »

Also, characterising the ban as "forcing people to wear certain clothes" is a little disingenuous.

It is not disingenuous. I don't see how anyone could possibly interpret the law "you shall not wear a Burka" as anything other than an instruction to adhere to certain clothing styles.

It's psuedo-liberalism. Supporters of the ban purport to be aiding the rights of muslim women but the end goal is only the suppression of liberty further. Supporters of the ban are, in my opinion, enemies of human freedom. The wheel has turned full circle: whereas before one would have looked to religon to see restrictions on liberty, now it is those most vehemently against religon that are enforcing their world view over others.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It is not disingenuous. I don't see how anyone could possibly interpret the law "you shall not wear a Burka" as anything other than an instruction to adhere to certain clothing styles.

It's psuedo-liberalism. Supporters of the ban purport to be aiding the rights of muslim women but the end goal is only the suppression of liberty further. Supporters of the ban are, in my opinion, enemies of human freedom. The wheel has turned full circle: whereas before one would have looked to religon to see restrictions on liberty, now it is those most vehemently against religon that are enforcing their world view over others.

The reason I say it is disingenuous is because, while it is true that the ban is an instruction to adhere to certain clothing styles, it is only true in a technical sense. We are also not allowed to walk around public wearing nothing but a piece of dental floss. Therefore, anti-nudism laws are also technically nothing but an instruction to adhere to certain clothing styles. They are the suppression of liberty further, and supporters of anti-nudism laws are, technically, enemies of human freedom. I do not, of course, believe anti-nudism laws are laws of oppression, even though it is technically true that they are.

I have a question: If a community (religious or otherwise) encouraged women to voluntarily kill themselves in the name of a given cause, would you support legislation against it?

Morbert wrote: »

The reason I say it is disingenuous is because, while it is true that the ban is an instruction to adhere to certain clothing styles, it is only true in a technical sense. We are also not allowed to walk around public wearing nothing but a piece of dental floss. Therefore, anti-nudism laws are also technically nothing but an instruction to adhere to certain clothing styles. They are the suppression of liberty further, and supporters of anti-nudism laws are, technically, enemies of human freedom. I do not, of course, believe anti-nudism laws are laws of oppression, even though it is technically true that they are.

That's an inappropriate comparison. Public nudity is banned in the interests of the people not engaging in the nudity. It is not banned because legislators feel that people hurt themselves by being naked; they ban it because they feel people hurt others by being naked.

On the contrary, the burka ban is being generally promoted here on the basis that it is good for the women involved. It is no such thing. It is no better than being forced to wear a burka by ones husband, and it is probably worse, as one cannot go to ones local police station to file a claim against the government for forcing you to wear certain things. If the problem is a lack of choice, further restricting that choice is the most bizarre possible kind of solution.

Morbert wrote: »

I have a question: If a community (religious or otherwise) encouraged women to voluntarily kill themselves in the name of a given cause, would you support legislation against it?

Probably not. I believe in freedom of speech and the freedom of self-determination. If that involves killing yourself for your God, then I find that unfortunate, but not as unfortunate as cultural tendency to force the "right" way of living on others, as you would, presumably, do here. The solution in a situation like the above is education.

strobe wrote: »

Almost 100% positive Nicolas Sarkozy is a Christian so I doubt he is vehemently against religion.

I'm referring to "New Atheists" who by-and-large, it would seem, agree with this intrusion onto the personal liberty and identity of Muslim women and the community at large.

caseyann wrote: »

It really is quite funny,women who are oppressed and forced to wear the full veil in Arab etc.. countries women are dying and fighting for this to be lifted in their countries as a sign of freedom for women.And people are trying to go backwards in the already free country.

There's a happy medium between forcing to them to do one thing (Iran), and forcing them to do another (France) - the apparently unfashionable notions of individual liberty and personal self-determination.

caseyann wrote: »

Just because a woman says she likes being covered doesnt mean she actually does.

That's a slippery moral slope to go down. Why are we to believe young criminals when they say they don't like being tortured - it doesn't mean it's not good for them? Purporting to act in someone else's interests is always a risky thing to do.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That's an inappropriate comparison. Public nudity is banned in the interests of the people not engaging in the nudity. It is not banned because legislators feel that people hurt themselves by being naked; they ban it because they feel people hurt others by being naked.

On the contrary, the burka ban is being generally promoted here on the basis that it is good for the women involved. It is no such thing. It is no better than being forced to wear a burka by ones husband, and it is probably worse, as one cannot go to ones local police station to file a claim against the government for forcing you to wear certain things. If the problem is a lack of choice, further restricting that choice is the most bizarre possible kind of solution.

The comparison was entirely appropriate to highlight the disingenuous nature of claiming the burka ban "is an instruction to adhere to certain clothing styles". Even if anti-nudism laws have the general public in mind, they are still technically an oppressive instruction to adhere to certain clothing styles. Yet nobody would claim that "our government forces us to adhere to certain clothing styles" is an accurate description of government policy on clothes.

As an aside: My stance has always been that, if the burka were an arbitrary piece of clothing that people chose to wear, I would oppose the ban. But I support the ban because a large majority of women around the world are forced to wear the burka, which implies the fringe communities in western countries may be doing the same. So by wearing the burka, people are enabling state/community-sanctioned abuse of women. "Hurting others" in other ords. It will not solve the problem, and I do have some practical issues with the ban (ideally I would see men punished if women wore the burka, which isn't really possible)

Probably not. I believe in freedom of speech and the freedom of self-determination. If that involves killing yourself for your God, then I find that unfortunate, but not as unfortunate as cultural tendency to force the "right" way of living on others, as you would, presumably, do here. The solution in a situation like the above is education.

Now imagine if some of these women were indoctrinated since childhood, to the extent that they are not exercising freedom of self-determination. Would you still hold the same opinion regarding legislation?

This is on-topic, but not in context with the arguments above.

I've seen a couple of films recently which made me think of this thread. One was Malèna, set in WWII-era Italy, in which Monica Bellucci's character is reviled by the women of the overtly Catholic town for being an object of their men's lust. The second was Tom Jones, set in 18th century England, in which a couple of women who become pregnant out of wedlock are reviled by the women of the village.

Now, I'm too young and too urban to know if these depictions of women in overtly Christian places rings true with De Valera's Ireland. However, it seems to me that if those stories reflect reality, it's entirely consistent that Muslim women would choose to wear the burka. These films suggest that women from cultures which repress women mostly choose to be complicit in that repression, and view it as virtuous.

Consequently, whatever the effects of the burka ban (or indeed its motives), I think the solution to the question of the repression of Muslim women has to be though the education system.

caseyann wrote: »

Not to be bad Eliot,but if they really want to live by such culture and rules,they should really stay within those countries... If they dont like western ways they should stay at home and enjoy their freedom of controlling women there.

They are at home! They are French! 3rd 4th and 5th generation! Their people would have settled there around the time of WWII and now make up 1 in 10 of the population of France.

strobe wrote: »

The idea that this is the non-religious attacking the religious is entirely unsupported

Nobody said the non-religious were 'attacking' anything. I said 'would most likely be in favour of...' Little bit of a difference I think.

Scotty # wrote: »

Actually it isn't. First of all it is not a crime to be naked in public in Ireland. Hence we have several nudist public beaches and hundreds of people could gather naked in Cork and Dublin for the Spencer Tunick photos. However, it IS a crime to engage in indecent behaviour. So as long as your nakedness is not deemed to be 'indecent' you're OK. (let's not start debating this!). The laws have NOTHING to do with clothing, they are regarding behaviour.

You are being contrived. While it might be possible to receive permission for certain events, purposes, or locations, walking around a street naked is deemed to be indecent. I could just as easily describe the wearing of the burka as "antisocial behaviour", and thereby remove any explicit reference to clothing style.

Can you show some evidence to back up this statement please?

Women are forced to wear, at the very least, a veil in Saudi Arabia, Iran, northern Nigerian and Sudanese states. Until recently, they were forced to wear it in Afghanistan. There is also well documented societal pressure in Muslim countries.

It just doesn't make sense to me... You support women being forced not to wear it because they were being forced to wear it? Is that correct? Why not just support their right to choose!?!

Because I am not convinced they will be given the choice. As I said to Eliot, if the equality and empowerment of women were established in the type of communities where women wear the veil, I would oppose the ban. The optimal scenario is for men and women to wear whatever they like, free from pressures or obligations. But until that scenario is reached, I see the ban as the lesser of two evils.

Change the question to "Do you believe your government should control what clothing you wear?" and move it to a neutral forum. See what the response is then. This forum is most likely biased towards all religious symbols (Yes, I know the Burka is cultural, but it's seen by most westerners as religious) and would be in favour of their removal altogether.

As I have said before, that is disingenuous. I do not believe the government should control what clothing you wear, unless your choice of attire is indecent or antisocial.

Morbert wrote: »

The comparison was entirely appropriate to highlight the disingenuous nature of claiming the burka ban "is an instruction to adhere to certain clothing styles". Even if anti-nudism laws have the general public in mind, they are still technically an oppressive instruction to adhere to certain clothing styles. Yet nobody would claim that "our government forces us to adhere to certain clothing styles" is an accurate description of government policy on clothes.

As Scotty said, it's a law for public decency. By wearing a burka in public one is not being indecent. Additionally, as I said, the burka ban is purportedly in the interests of the women involved, whereas decency legislation is in the interests of everyone but the nudist.

Morbert wrote: »

As an aside: My stance has always been that, if the burka were an arbitrary piece of clothing that people chose to wear, I would oppose the ban. But I support the ban because a large majority of women around the world are forced to wear the burka, which implies the fringe communities in western countries may be doing the same. So by wearing the burka, people are enabling state/community-sanctioned abuse of women.

But this is where your argument topples. Your solution to the problem of "state/community-sanctioned abuse of women" is a state-sanctioned decree to force women not to wear certain clothes. But the solution is worse than the problem. There is no reason to suggest that all women in France are forced to wear the burka (I havent seen evidence that even a majority are) whereas the ban will affect all women. And, as I've said, there's no running from this law.

Morbert wrote: »

Now imagine if some of these women were indoctrinated since childhood, to the extent that they are not exercising freedom of self-determination. Would you still hold the same opinion regarding legislation?

Yes. It's all too easy to dismiss lifestyles you disagree with as the product of "indoctrination". I could just as easily say you're indoctrinated by Christopher Hitchens into supporting New Atheism, and then call for your way of life to be suppresed. The best we can do is offer a broad education to people. The alternative is the majority of citizens suppressing others in an anti-liberty campaign of a scale not seen in Europe since the 40s.