Burka ban

Scotty # wrote: »

Mark, do you believe Irish men (the father) should have control over how Irish women (the 16 year old daughter) dress when socialising?

Daughter is heading out to the local disco wearing provocative clothing and father insists she cover up or stay at home... Is the fathers behaviour acceptable?

So you are going to continue to ignore that fact that burkas are sexist and make up silly little strawmen (there is a world of difference between a girl being made to be 40 or 50% covered when going to party, as opposed to 10%, and a woman being made to be 100% covered up all the time in public, even when eating or swimming. Not that the women would be allowed to the party, covered up or not).

Why should I even bother to respond to you? For whatever reason, you aren't getting the part about extreme sexism hence your stupid analogies where you try to compare the mundane with the extreme.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

If it's accepted that the burka is a symbol of sexist oppression, how does banning it help? Does banning a garment that is a symbol of sexist oppression remove the sexist oppression, or simply move it out of sight?

I think initially it may be moved out of sight, but I would expect that ultimately the goal is to have it removed from the society fully.

The ban signals that the country does not approve. I would hope that this disapproval will make it harder for subsequent generations to enforce the wearing of the garment. I think this is important.

I think that in the short term women who currently wear the burka may stay at home, but I expect that once the sexist misogynistic husbands have to do the school run a few times as well as carry the shopping themselves, perhaps there might be a change of heart.

MrP

bluewolf wrote: »

Sorry but "perhaps there might be" is not good enough for a ban like this. Back it up with genuine attempts at reform and helping these women, or don't ban it at all.

Unfortunately when you have no experience to fall back on, no studies to look at I think “perhaps there might be” is probably as good as it gets.

Only time will tell what the effect of the ban is.

MrP

Mark Hamill wrote: »

a woman being made to be 100% covered up all the time in public,

If you read the report I posted you would find that most of the women interviewed do NOT wear the Burka every time they go out in public. They pick and choose when they were it. But you seems to have your own blinkered view of why these woman wear the Burka and a total disregard for what the women themselves actually feel about it (hmm does that sound familiar???). "Sure what would they know...? They've all been brainwashed anyway, let's fine them!!" Much like the French government who during their 500 page 6 month study into the Burka in France interviewed a grand total of ONE Muslim woman (after she repeatedly insisted she be heard!).

Anyone who believes the French government has introduced this law for the the purpose of improving the welfare of Islamic women is a fool. Just look at the Ghettos...massive poverty, almost 0% employment, no policing, no funding, no support. How does the government help? They ban the Burka! Maybe we should nominate Sarkozy for the Nobel Prize? He's been such a staunch supporter of women's rights in the past - no wait.... actually, the announcment of the ban was the first time he'd EVER brought up the subject! And 2 days after a poll had shown he'd lost 15% support to the National Front. Coincidence? I don't think so.

The French gov have seen the increase in Islam. The have seen the young Muslim youths turn to the Islamic fundamental groups in the ghetto (because there is noone else to turn to) and they've **** themselves, as did the Belgians. "Let's stamp it out now before it's too late". The Swiss have banned minarets, but there were only 4 in the country to begin with. Reports now that Claude Gerants next step is to ban praying in public (again, a Muslim practice).

I dread to think where this is all leading to.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Where do you get this from? I never assumed anything, I looked for the reasons they wear the burka and could see, quite clearly, that its incredibly irrational and extremely sexist, so I concluded that the women where indoctrinated, as its hardly the first time people have been indoctrinated into believing stupid things. When people contradicted me in this thread, I asked what reasons they heard, because I am open to the fact that I may not have heard all reasons and that maybe the burka isn't sexist and oppressive from a particular rational point of view, but you just repeated what I have already discovered myself. Its not a case of "the louder they shout, the more I feel vindicated", its more "the more you repeat without adding anything, the more likely I am right". Rationality doesn't increase with volume.

Permabear wrote: »

The problem is that you simply aren't open to having your initial premise questioned. It is like arguing with a religious person who simply presumes that God exists, and proceeds dogmatically from there.

I am open, but you need to actually bring something to the table. I'm not going to throw out my logic, with no rational counter logic to do so, simply because you dont like it. You need to do more than bring arguments I've already heard, arguments I've already countered, in order to change my mind. Arguing with you is like arguing with a theist who is just shocked and appalled that their opponent doesn't just automatically give up under their emotive assertions.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Actually yes it does, do yourself a favour and go and read up on indoctrination, in a religious sense. maybe then you will understand that it undermines peoples ability to make free choices.
Now try and answer the hypothetical question.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

(Is that a yes to my question then?)
I have explained this several times, despite the obvious benefits, we cant ban everything irrational, so we aim for the most extreme and most damaging first. Lent may be irational, but its not particularly extreme or damaging. Sexism and oppression is.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Prove then that these women are capable of choosing to wear the burka freely. Keep in mind you have to take account of the fact that the only women who do wear are converts to the extreme form of islam that require it, that no western woman from a free society (relative to the societies that enforce the burka) wears one.

Permabear wrote: »

If a woman can choose to be a Page 3 girl, porn star, or stripper, all of which are widely considered to demean women, then she should also be able to choose to wear a burqa.

As I have said, these aren't sexist, they are shallow, because they reduce people to one dimension (their sexuality). There a versions of these for women, they just aren't as popular, but to say they are sexist would be akin to calling a heterosexual man sexist because he isn't attracted to men.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So you agree that the burka is irrational?

So to recap, you seem to agree that the burka is irrational, that its sexist, that its indoctrination but you dont seem to think any of this matters and you still belief regardless of the level of indoctrination, regardless of their inability to make a free and rational choice, they should still get a say in the laws concernign the burka? Simply yes/no's will suffice.

Scotty # wrote: »

If you read the report I posted you would find that most of the women interviewed do NOT wear the Burka every time they go out in public. They pick and choose when they were it. But you seems to have your own blinkered view of why these woman wear the Burka and a total disregard for what the women themselves actually feel about it (hmm does that sound familiar???). "Sure what would they know...? They've all been brainwashed anyway, let's fine them!!"

That they only wear it some of the time doesn't make it more rational or less sexist. In fact, wearing only sometimes makes less rational, whats the thinking behind whether they wear it or not? Get up and if you have a bad hair day, dont bother with the burka, you're unattractive and dont need it, but if you have a good hair day and wear make up, well better cover up, head to toe, in case we arouse those men uncontrollably :rolleyes:.

Scotty # wrote: »

Much like the French government who during their 500 page 6 month study into the Burka in France interviewed a grand total of ONE Muslim woman (after she repeatedly insisted she be heard!).

Use your head man, if the burka isn't sexist and it is rational, then they wouldn't need to ask any specific person about it, they could the information from religious sources.

Scotty # wrote: »

The French gov have seen the increase in Islam. The have seen the young Muslim youths turn to the Islamic fundamental groups in the ghetto (because there is noone else to turn to) and they've **** themselves, as did the Belgians. "Let's stamp it out now before it's too late".

They should just let kids join fundamentalist groups without interference? How the hell will that help?

Scotty # wrote: »

The Swiss have banned minarets, but there were only 4 in the country to begin with. Reports now that Claude Gerants next step is to ban praying in public (again, a Muslim practice).

How many minarets do you think would have been a justifiable number to reach before banning them? Should we have lower limits for all crimes? Murder isn't illegal, as long as less than 5 murders are committed a year?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That they only wear it some of the time doesn't make it more rational or less sexist. In fact, wearing only sometimes makes less rational, whats the thinking behind whether they wear it or not? Get up and if you have a bad hair day, dont bother with the burka, you're unattractive and dont need it, but if you have a good hair day and wear make up, well better cover up, head to toe, in case we arouse those men uncontrollably :rolleyes:.

You backed up your argument saying the women were forced to wear the garment ALL THE TIME in public. I have shown you that that is not the case and again you have tried to twist it into the woman's irrational behaviour. Do you believe all women to be irrational or can any women consciously make a decision on anything?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Use your head man, if the burka isn't sexist and it is rational, then they wouldn't need to ask any specific person about it, they could the information from religious sources.

You don't think to study the reasons why women in France wear the Burka it would be a good idea to speak to a few of them? And you're suggesting I use my head?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They should just let kids join fundamentalist groups without interference? How the hell will that help?

My point went over your head. They are not trying to stop the youths. They are trying to stop the spread of Islam. That's the 'problem', according to Claude Gueant.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How many minarets do you think would have been a justifiable number to reach before banning them? Should we have lower limits for all crimes? Murder isn't illegal, as long as less than 5 murders are committed a year?

huh?? you are seriously comparing the design of mosques to murder?

I've heard it all.

/unsubscribed

robindch wrote: »

I think the banning is sending a useful political signal to the kind of men who require women to wear the burka that (a) in the first instance, oppressive practices like the veil won't be tolerated and (b) more generally, that the state is prepared to step in to protect and guarantee the rights that have been taken from them, voluntarily or involuntarily.

But you're quite right. Casting off the chains of coercive religion is going to take a lot more than just banning the burka -- education, job opportunities, social integration with mainstream society through sports, music, drama + other group activities, etc should all be done as well. Basically, as much as possible in order to limit the ability of the various religions to create hermetically-sealed ingroups.

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that's true. What makes you think that? On the day of the ban in France, there was just a tiny handful of people protesting, and of them, I only recall one woman (the one who appeared in all the photo-ops). If what you say is true, there would have been widespread protests, wouldn't there?

.

I certainly agree with the first part of your post. As to the second, I don't have any evidence aside from the fact that dislike and distrst would seem to be the natural reaction of anyone told by a government what they could and could not do, particularly when that is part of their perceived social identity. But that's not evidence, so I'll happily concede the point for now.

Valmont wrote: »

And we get to the root of the matter- Philosopher kings who arbitrarily assign labels of mentally deficient and "indoctrinated" to groups of people with whom they disagree. That is the dark hand of statism- arbitrary rule and coercion from people prcliaming to know what is good for someone else based on still fuzzy notions of indoctrination and rationality.

Cage fights, expensive fashion items, base jumping, free climbing, all of these activities could be argued to be irrational from one person to another. That is not the issue. The issue is allowing people to act purposively, regardless of whether you think it is silly or not. Any other system is just a long, authoritative and patronising road to a complete hegemony of what you call the rational .

Yawn. This notion that you cant pass judgement on what other people do because of "who are you to say what is rational" is complete bollocks. Our whole society is based on telling people what they can and cant do so that people dont just do what they want, when they want and invariably end up eating each other.
Seriously now, do you think that a guy from country A who goes to live in country B should be able to live his life according to country As laws, the laws which suit his conscience, because what right doesn't country B have to tell him what to do? Going by your "logic" we can never say any is ever wrong and we can never interfere regardless of what they do. This libertarian bs is insane.

bluewolf wrote: »

But this is about people from country A living in country A

No, its about a government telling people what to do with laws. We expect that if someone moves to Ireland that they follow irish laws and we wouldn't be expected to let them enact conflicting foreign laws here simply because it suits their "conscience". That the person may be from country A doesn't man they get to enact country Bs laws either.

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

You seem to be debating whether or not foreign people should obey the law. We're concerned with whether or not a law banning the burka should be implemented

I was responding to Valmonts post where he was essentially questioning the notions of indoctrination and irrationality, trying to make out that I am just intolerant of people I disagree with and no-one can ever tell someone to do or not to do something because no-one is 100% rational (a strawman many of you seem to hold to, as you are all ignoring the fact that the burka is not just irrational, but also sexist, hence deserving of banning over the myriad of things that are just irrational).
The fact of the matter is that we already have laws in effect that tell people what to do for their own good (every law there is, in theory), so this notion that governments cant or shouldn't tell people what to do if it can be shown to be bad for society, is ludicrous.

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Then why isn't self-harm illegal? Why does the government allow people do things to themselves that are clearly, well, harmful? Laws are made for everyone else's own good, and the penal system ensure that it's in your own interest not to break them?

The government tend to try to give people a certain amount of autonomy. Why is self harm not illegal, I think the clue in in the name, it is self harm. I think you will find if a person was forcing another person, against their will to self harm, then the person doing the forcing would be likely to face criminal sanction.

Whilst a lot of people believe, myself included, that there is a element of self harm associated with wearing the burka, the main issue is that there is also a social harm. People self harming does not really have this same effect. People who self harm don't damage society in the way the burka does. People self harming does not tell society that it is ok to treat woman as property and reduce their rights and blame them for being raped and all the other thing that comes with the burka.

I agree, the government should, as far as possible, stay out of people's lives. But when the actions of a person or group of persons begins to have negative an effect on society at large, however small, then they need to step in.

There is no rational reason for the burka. The more I read on the subject the less supportive I am of the old "well, its their culture" line. Some things are just wrong. Some behaviour is just wrong. And we should not be afraid of upsetting people by telling them so.

MrP