Burka ban

25-09-2011 03:18PM

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

robindch wrote: »

Can you point to any non-islamic women who've made a fully unencumbered decision to wear the burka?

See the link in my post above. In any case, what does it matter if they're islamic or not? Islamic women wear it or don't wear it.

Not that it's going to make any difference if there are a few, as there may well be, since the number of them is far outweighed by the number of women who are coerced into wearing it and it's quite reasonable for the government, as I mentioned in the reply to audrey above, to choose to legislate for the greater freedom of the greater number, over the lesser freedom of the smaller.

First you say it's a fact none of them choose to wear it therefore the law is reasonable. Now you're saying it doesn't matter if they choose to wear it because the law is reasonable.

The government is simply stepping in to support the greater freedom to choose what to wear

You must be joking. The govt is stepping in to restrict freedom of what to wear. That is simply all there is to it. To pretend that a ban on wearing a certain item of clothing is a freedom is a bit 1984-like.
It also completely ignores the fact that for any woman who is not choosing to wear it, she will be increasingly at risk of being subject to attacks if not housebound outright. This is completely against the idea of "greater freedom".
But I suppose that doesn't matter because a token ban, sorry, freedom, is now in place so they can wash their hands of it without having to deal with the core issues :rolleyes:

robindch · 25-09-2011 03:41PM

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

bluewolf wrote: »

First you say it's a fact none of them choose to wear it therefore the law is reasonable. Now you're saying it doesn't matter if they choose to wear it because the law is reasonable.

You're misreading my posts. I'm saying that I believe that no non-muslim women have chosen to wear the burka full-time, for life. I'm also saying that even if there are a few such women, they are certainly outnumbered by the number of women who are coerced into wearing it.

bluewolf wrote: »

The govt is stepping in to restrict freedom of what to wear.

You can view it either way -- either they're restricting the right of women to wear what they want (the anti-ban view) or they're supporting the right of women to wear what they want (the pro-ban view).

From the choice perspective, and ignoring the coercive and other aspects, I believe that the number of women who fall within the anti-ban's definition is small or zero, while the number of women who fall within the anti-ban's definition is relatively large.

The good of the many outweigh the good of the few.

And as I keep on saying, while I don't like this ban, I do think it's useful to view it from the utilitarian perspective where any policy has merits and demerits which must be weighed, rather than the ideological one, where policies are decided according to certain interpretations of certain constitutionally-defined ideas, and without much reference to the effect of such policies.

AhSureTisGrand · 25-09-2011 03:48PM

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

That's not relevant to this argument, but it's a good start that you recognise that the wearing of the burka can be as the result of coercion.

Don't get too excited buddy. Any act can be as a result of coercion.

So the question then becomes: if some activity happens (largely) on account of coercion, then is it reasonable to ban that activity, in the expectation that this form of coercion will cease?

No because the means does not condemn the ends. One logical conclusion of your position is that cotton-picking in the deep south should have been banned in its entirety in order to combat slaveryl

Yes, it's called religion

Ah I see. If I submit to a secular moral code, I still possess absolute freedom. However, if I submit to a religious one, I am being oppressed

AhSureTisGrand · 25-09-2011 03:56PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Why does it matter if they're Islamic or not? We haven't regressed to "THEY'RE ALL POOR INDOCTRINATED IMBECILES", have we?

The good of the many outweigh the good of the few.

I'd like to see where you stand on this, Robin:

some lady called Judith wrote:

A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor.

robindch · 25-09-2011 04:07PM

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

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

One logical conclusion of your position is that cotton-picking in the deep south should have been banned in its entirety in order to combat slavery!

An interesting, if very faulty, analogy. Do you believe that discouraging crimes by acting at one or more removes is pointless?

AhSureTisGrand wrote:

I'd like to see where you stand on this, Robin:

I have absolutely no idea what relevance this has to this topic

Could you reply to something that is my position, ie, the utilitarian argument above?

BluntGuy · 25-09-2011 05:54PM

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Could you reply to something that is my position, ie, the utilitarian argument above?

It has probably been said already in a thread this large, but how does banning the burqa actually address the fundamental problem (rather than the symptom), that is the element of coercion in the relationship/religion - not treating women on a parity with men and how are the potential repercussions dealt with?

While I could not imagine why anyone who has not been brainwashed would elect to regularly wear such a hideous garb, and regardless of my, as you might put it, "ideological" opposition to the ban, I do not see how it will actually solve any problems. I won't pretend to have the answer to how you stop coercion in a relationship, but banning certain clothing I would imagine isn't the answer, because I very much doubt someone who forces their wife to wear the burqa is happy families, totally loving and un-controlling in every single other aspect of their lives.

AhSureTisGrand · 25-09-2011 08:50PM

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea what relevance this has to this topic

Could you reply to something that is my position, ie, the utilitarian argument above?

I am curious as to what you mean by "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few" and want to know if you would take the man's organs in the scenario (as act utilitarians would).

An interesting, if very faulty, analogy. Do you believe that discouraging crimes by acting at one or more removes is pointless?

What do you mean by "discouraging"? If we criminalise an act because it leads to crime then we are at zero removes from crime

dead one · 26-09-2011 08:11AM

Scotty # wrote: »

And if it's not coercion it'll be due to indoctrination.
.

bluewolf wrote: »

Of course there is coercion. So stop the coercion, not banning free choice for everyone else.

Originally Posted by MrPudding
To me it is similar to someone walking up to me, putting a gun to my head and "asking" me to hand over all my mobey. Yes, I have chosen, oft own free will, to hand over my money, but did I really have a choice

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

I have a revolutionary idea: we ban those things instead

robindch wrote: »

From the choice perspective, and ignoring the coercive and other aspects, I believe that the number of women who fall within the anti-ban's definition is small or zero, while the number of women who fall within the anti-ban's definition is relatively large.

BluntGuy wrote: »

It has probably been said already in a thread this large, but how does banning the burqa actually address the fundamental problem (rather than the symptom), that is the element of coercion in the relationship/religion - not treating women on a parity with men and how are the potential repercussions dealt with?

While I could not imagine why anyone who has not been brainwashed would elect to regularly wear such a hideous garb, and regardless of my, as you might put it, "ideological" opposition to the ban, I do not see how it will actually solve any problems. I won't pretend to have the answer to how you stop coercion in a relationship, but banning certain clothing I would imagine isn't the answer, because I very much doubt someone who forces their wife to wear the burqa is happy families, totally loving and un-controlling in every single other aspect of their lives.

It is often said, not least by Western folks, that evil Moslems women are forced into wearing a hijab/burka/veil and that therefore there should be a lock against this sort of coercion, as in the bans sought by #uropean politicians. However, I have never seen any of these debates include an obstruction to shapes of coercive power per se.

So on the other hand, Evil Mooslems women are said to be forced into wearing a veil or burqa, there is exceptionally any question of anyone else being forces into wearing whatever it is that they wear. And yet, if I appeared in work today with a T shirt that read I Am A Wage Slave Whore, I would come up against with legally sanctioned disciplinary action from my employer, and many of those who say against Evil Mooslem women wearing a burka, on account of its relational-ship with force, would say, that in fact I had freely chosen to destroy company rules and that therefore I could have n0 problem if I ended up on the d0le.

And clearly force into wearing particular cloths is by no means the sole manifestation of coercive power in everyday life. Capitalism requests all manner of forcible limits on people’s acti0ns -what they wear, what they say, how they work- on account of the fear of losing one’s livelihood, status and so on.

But the result of any acti0n that goes against these limits is widely represented as the symbol of freedom. More important though is the implicit belief that any action to refrain from contravening these forcible extent is also free choice. I am tend toward to say, therefore, that what ‘lurks undr those shr0uds’ is simply an argument for forcible power in its #uropean capitalist shape, in which everyone is held to be where they are honestly on account of the free (market) choices they have made.

If this ‘right’ were to be somehow coerced, it would spell the end of telephones. And beards. And sunglasses.

Let talk in usual way, all, Aren't these factors of coercion in your society

1. Prostitutes/Hooker/Pimps
2. Advertisement of women
3. Women in half naked dresses in the streets
4. Phonographic y

Why don't Europeans government ban prostitution on the other hand they have problem with a piece of cloth

Scotty # · 26-09-2011 09:39AM

I'm religious and support the ban

BluntGuy wrote: »

It has probably been said already in a thread this large, but how does banning the burqa actually address the fundamental problem

The pro-ban side have agreed many times in the thread the a ban would do nothing to stop oppression. It simply confines them to their homes, etc, etc...

It is for reasons like this that I think most people agreeing to the ban are doing so purely through Islamaphobia.

Mark Hamill · 26-09-2011 12:44PM

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

Scotty # wrote: »

The pro-ban side have agreed many times in the thread the a ban would do nothing to stop oppression. It simply confines them to their homes, etc, etc...

It is for reasons like this that I think most people agreeing to the ban are doing so purely through Islamaphobia.

Like who?

Scotty # · 26-09-2011 02:54PM

I'm religious and support the ban

I'm not going back reading 1600 posts but I do remember several saying that they did not believe it would free these women from oppression. Do you disagree? You think this ban will suddenly free them from oppression??? Surely you are not that naive?

AhSureTisGrand · 26-09-2011 05:09PM

I'm religious and support the ban

dead one wrote: »

If this ‘right’ were to be somehow coerced, it would spell the end of telephones. And beards. And sunglasses.

I've never thought about it like that before

Mark Hamill · 26-09-2011 05:12PM

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

Scotty # wrote: »

I'm not going back reading 1600 posts but I do remember several saying that they did not believe it would free these women from oppression. Do you disagree? You think this ban will suddenly free them from oppression??? Surely you are not that naive?

I'm not talking about those who say it will change nothing, I'm asking who you are accusing of islamophobia.

Scotty # · 26-09-2011 07:42PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Those who agree it will change nothing, but want it introduced none the less.

pagancornflake · 26-09-2011 08:22PM

I'm religious and support the ban

BluntGuy wrote: »

It has probably been said already in a thread this large, but how does banning the burqa actually address the fundamental problem (rather than the symptom), that is the element of coercion in the relationship/religion - not treating women on a parity with men and how are the potential repercussions dealt with?

While I could not imagine why anyone who has not been brainwashed would elect to regularly wear such a hideous garb, and regardless of my, as you might put it, "ideological" opposition to the ban, I do not see how it will actually solve any problems. I won't pretend to have the answer to how you stop coercion in a relationship, but banning certain clothing I would imagine isn't the answer, because I very much doubt someone who forces their wife to wear the burqa is happy families, totally loving and un-controlling in every single other aspect of their lives.

Agreed. It seems the fundamental issue causing coercion at home is the family. Ban the family as well. Remove all the symptoms to cure the disease!

AhSureTisGrand · 26-09-2011 10:30PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Out of curiosity bluewolf why does this poll have you on the yes side?

27-09-2011 08:13AM

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

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Out of curiosity bluewolf why does this poll have you on the yes side?

Yeah I wondered the same when I was looking at it again recently
I think I was wavering back when I first heard about it and ended up on yes, but as time went on and I thought about it, I became more and more firmly "no"

that or i just hit the wrong button

Mark Hamill · 27-09-2011 12:54PM

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

Scotty # wrote: »

Those who agree it will change nothing, but want it introduced none the less.

Such as? If you are going to accuse someone of Islamophobia, at least have the honesty and bravery to name them.

Jimoslimos · 27-09-2011 02:34PM

Like many many people here I'm pretty conflicted on the entire issue.

One half of me says people should be free to cover their faces if they so wish, regardless of whether I find it offensive or intimidating - That's my problem not theirs. Why does the government need to give me the right to see every muslim womans' face? Hell with the amount of intrusive CCTV on our streets its a tempting option even for the non-religious!

Then I acknowledge that for certain businesses and places its common sense to demand people show their identity - compromise, women free to wear hijab in public on the street but every business also have right to refuse entry without unveiling.

Next I start thinking about the origins of the hijab, in Saudi Arabia I can see the advantages of a full face mask in a hot, windy, dusty place, regardless of religious significance. But this is Europe, and I rarely see the husbands/brothers/male relatives dressing in traditional Islamic garb here - so why has this particular custom been upheld for women only?

I agree with many of the posters who argue that banning it wouldn't improve the inequality suffered by muslim women, rather by forcing them to remain indoors it may make matters worse. Also it gives rise to an entrenched Us Vs Them mentality forming the basis for further extremism.

Listen Rome wasn't built in a day, and if women here in the early 20th century were to be approached with modern feminist agendas you can be sure there'd be a fair amount of hostility too, even amongst those who supported the suffragette movement.

yammycat · 27-09-2011 04:35PM

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

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

I have a revolutionary idea: we ban those things instead

Sure thing brah, all that needs is 24 hour surveillance in every persons house, cctv monitored by people just doing a job and who won't take any notice of any sexual interactions, and turn a blind eye to any and all events in the bathroom that aren't browbeating.

I'll just assume you posted that as a throw away smart report without giving a seconds thought to whether it was enforceable or not, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

And in case thats not the case well no, your revolutionary idea is a pile of pants because we can ban anything we like but we can't effectively police what goes on behind closed doors.

It is known woman are forced to wear these so any woman who wears it by choice is part of the problem, all woman should stop wearing these, we are not talking about something that is required as labour was mentioned.

All woman who sport these by choice, with the knowledge that others are being forced to should be treated with the contempt they deserve, they are worse than the men who beat their wives, to smugly spout their religious convictions happily knowing others are being beaten and tortured and mutilated and killed for not wanting any part of it is simply repugnant.

Continuing with any action which is in no way needed and which will continue the suffereing and pain of others is wrong, it is simply wrong, and if your religion does not agree then your religion is evil pure and simple.

Scotty # · 27-09-2011 05:39PM

I'm religious and support the ban

yammycat wrote: »

All woman who sport these by choice, with the knowledge that others are being forced to should be treated with the contempt they deserve, they are worse than the men who beat their wives

What nonsense!!!

So a woman who has sex should be treated with contempt because other women have been forced to? And are worse than the rapist for doing so?

And you have been 'thanked' for these words of wisdom!?!? The mind boggles.

Scotty # · 27-09-2011 05:43PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Such as? If you are going to accuse someone of Islamophobia, at least have the honesty and bravery to name them.

I'm accusing anyone who does not believe that the ban will have a positive effect on these womens lives but who wants to see the ban introduced none the less as Islamophobic. It's not an unreasonable assumption. If you want to know who they are within this thread you will have to read back over the 1600 posts yourself - I don't remember.

Have you actually a point to make or are you just trying to stir it up?

RussellTuring · 27-09-2011 05:57PM

I'm religious and support the ban

yammycat wrote: »

Sure thing brah, all that needs is 24 hour surveillance in every persons house, cctv monitored by people just doing a job and who won't take any notice of any sexual interactions, and turn a blind eye to any and all events in the bathroom that aren't browbeating.

I'll just assume you posted that as a throw away smart report without giving a seconds thought to whether it was enforceable or not, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

And in case thats not the case well no, your revolutionary idea is a pile of pants because we can ban anything we like but we can't effectively police what goes on behind closed doors.

It is known woman are forced to wear these so any woman who wears it by choice is part of the problem, all woman should stop wearing these, we are not talking about something that is required as labour was mentioned.

All woman who sport these by choice, with the knowledge that others are being forced to should be treated with the contempt they deserve, they are worse than the men who beat their wives, to smugly spout their religious convictions happily knowing others are being beaten and tortured and mutilated and killed for not wanting any part of it is simply repugnant.

Continuing with any action which is in no way needed and which will continue the suffereing and pain of others is wrong, it is simply wrong, and if your religion does not agree then your religion is evil pure and simple.

That post is quite unbelievable. One of the main paints of the anti-ban argument is that preventing people from wearing them in public will only serve to make any women who are being mistreated at home will have to spend even more of their time there. You say yourself that it's impossible to ensure nothing happens inside someone's home, but what exactly does banning the item achieve?

As for your belief that women who want to wear it are worse than violent husbands, I think that's very warped. Ponytails were once a symbol of servitude in China; would wearing one now or at that time make me a Qing emperor?

Mark Hamill · 27-09-2011 06:11PM

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

Scotty # wrote: »

What nonsense!!!

So a woman who has sex should be treated with contempt because other women have been forced to? And are worse than the rapist for doing so?

And you have been 'thanked' for these words of wisdom!?!? The mind boggles.

Your analogy isn't accurate. Its not "women who have sex", its "women who believe they should be raped".

Scotty # · 27-09-2011 06:17PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Yes it is. If the women are being forced to wear the burka then they are obviously doing it against their will and not doing it out of a belief they should.

Again, you are assuming that no women freely choose to wear the burka, which is wrong.

Mark Hamill · 27-09-2011 06:20PM

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

Scotty # wrote: »

I'm accusing anyone who does not believe that the ban will have a positive effect on these womens lives but who wants to see the ban introduced none the less as Islamophobic. It's not an unreasonable assumption. If you want to know who they are within this thread you will have to read back over the 1600 posts yourself - I don't remember.

Have you actually a point to make or are you just trying to stir it up?

I'm trying to see where this baseless accusation is coming from. You see, I dont know if this ban will positively effect the women currently indoctrinated into wearing the burka. Because of the nature of indoctrination, there really isn't really anything you can do that will positively effect them, no matter what you do, their indoctrination will rail against anything you put in front of them and leave them all the worse for it, even if it is the better choice they will still be the victim.
However, by putting pressure on them and their husbands, it should (at least) start the drive away from this misogynistic BS and hopefully lead to their preteen and adolescent children maybe question why their faces and hands are so supposedly so damaging in public. I (and others who support the ban, I would think) are not just looking at those currently indoctrinated, we are looking at those young girls and boys who are going to be (and currently are being) indoctrinated.

As I have asked many times before, what alternative do you propose, knowing that you are fighting against religious indoctrination?

RussellTuring · 27-09-2011 06:30PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm trying to see where this baseless accusation is coming from. You see, I dont know if this ban will positively effect the women currently indoctrinated into wearing the burka. Because of the nature of indoctrination, there really isn't really anything you can do that will positively effect them, no matter what you do, their indoctrination will rail against anything you put in front of them and leave them all the worse for it, even if it is the better choice they will still be the victim.
However, by putting pressure on them and their husbands, it should (at least) start the drive away from this misogynistic BS and hopefully lead to their preteen and adolescent children maybe question why their faces and hands are so supposedly so damaging in public. I (and others who support the ban, I would think) are not just looking at those currently indoctrinated, we are looking at those young girls and boys who are going to be (and currently are being) indoctrinated.

As I have asked many times before, what alternative do you propose, knowing that you are fighting against religious indoctrination?

You're not only assuming that you know better than the women themselves, but that this ban won't just push the children further into indoctrination by their families just keeping them indoors all the time.

Mark Hamill · 27-09-2011 06:31PM

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

Scotty # wrote: »

Yes it is. If the women are being forced to wear the burka then they are obviously doing it against their will and not doing it out of a belief they should.

The women who "believe" they should have been indoctrinated and so aren't acting of their own free will either. All women who wear the burka have been indoctrinated to do so, hence women outside of Islam dont wear it. When it comes to indoctrination, free will doesn't exist.

Scotty # wrote: »

Again, you are assuming that no woman can freely choose to wear the burka, which is wrong.

Prove it. It has been explained that the desire to wear the burka is purely an effect of extreme religious indoctrination time and time again. Its purpose is illogical, not to mention that it contradicts it and if it wasn't purely indoctrination, then why is it only worn by a relatively small subset of muslims? No woman freely choose to wear it, but the choice is never given freely, it has all the baggage of a misogynistic and oppressive interpretation of an authoritative religion behind it.

Mark Hamill · 27-09-2011 06:37PM

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

RussellTuring wrote: »

You're not only assuming that you know better than the women themselves,

Its not an assumption, its a logical deduction arrived at by actually examining the evidence without some inane romantic notion that you cant tell people that they are wrong.

RussellTuring wrote: »

but that this ban won't just push the children further into indoctrination by their families just keeping them indoors all the time.

You really think that these families can function without ever leaving the house? The men are going to do all the shopping (clothes and food), do the school run with the kids, while maintaining a job? Will all the births be home births? And what happens when the daughters reach puberty? Fathers going to home school them? Or will they just be hidden from the census, so that the governments wont know to care that there are children who are being denied their education?

RussellTuring · 27-09-2011 06:47PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its not an assumption, its a logical deduction arrived at by actually examining the evidence without some inane romantic notion that you cant tell people that they are wrong.

I've never before had "romantic" used to describe anything I've said. So what is the evidence? It is used as a symbol of oppression, therefore remove it and hope it decreases the oppression? It doesn't address the problem, it just takes it out of public view.

You really think that these families can function without ever leaving the house? The men are going to do all the shopping (clothes and food), do the school run with the kids, while maintaining a job? Will all the births be home births? And what happens when the daughters reach puberty? Fathers going to home school them? Or will they just be hidden from the census, so that the governments wont know to care that there are children who are being denied their education?

No I think it will be severely challenged and only used to justify the position that the State is trying to infringe on their beliefs and turn the vulnerable women away from potential freedom.

Burka ban

Comments