Burka ban

Gbear wrote: »

I've said a few times now, children and adults are different.
What an adult wears in their own time should be entirely their choice.
If either the government or someone else is forcing them to wear or not to wear something I believe that's wrong.

Buts it not their choice, equally so if they are being abused or brainwashed.

Gbear wrote: »

If they aren't willing to be forced to wear a burqa then they need to be supported by the state to make that decision but I don't believe it's the place of the state to go any further than that.
If they believe in their own thralldome, I don't think there's much we should do. Even if someone is wrong, I think it's their right to be.

If they want to escape from the tyranny then they have to have the courage to make a stand. I think giving them encouragement to make that stand and protecting them when they do is what is required from society but the decision should be theirs.

Such abuses never stop at the persons front door. It effects their kids (do you really think kids will have a better time if they are told in their secular education that forcing someone to wear something is wrong, and told at home that their mother must wear the burka?), it effects their interactions with other members of the public (the men who force their wives would force everyones wives if they could), it effects society.

Gbear wrote: »

It's a good debate and I was giving an example of a solution which prevents children from wearing the burqa.
Like I said above, I'm not completely sold one way or the other on the rights and responsibilities of children and some of the points you make are why.
I find it difficult to justify the burqa for children outside of government property certainly.
I'd rather avoid that topic from here on in if you wouldn't mind - at least until we resolve the debate for adults. That way tangents lie.

OK, for the sake of brevity, lets concentrate on adults.

Gbear wrote: »

It isn't even that clear cut. Alcohol is more harmful than drugs but we ban one and not the other. The arbitrariness makes bad law and that's why I think that maximum possible freedom is the only way we're likely to go, as gradual and slow a process as it might be.

Drugs are banned because they are perceived as being more damaging to society (by the law makers). Incompetence of law makers aside, that's how its supposed to work and while some time in the future we my achieve a fully free society were individuals can self regulate their actions so as to negatively impact each other as little as possible, that wont be achieved if we allow incredibly negative social memes to stew behind closed doors.
Do you accept that the burka effects individuals who wear it? Negatively or positively?
Do you accept that the burka effects society? Negatively or positively?

Gbear wrote: »

It's a perfectly legitimate use of the phrase. You have no more right to dictate what people should wear than anyone else. They're adults and it's their own choice.

But who are they to make choices for themselves? Why should anyone and everyone be allowed to make all decisions for themselves? This is the problem with "who are you" whataboutery, taken to its logical conclusion, how does anyone justify doing anything? It doesn't matter who I am, it only matters if my argument is rational.

Gbear wrote: »

If you take it to it's logical conclusion what you're doing is (I think rather arrogantly) assuming that religious people are incapable of making decisions on what they wear.

More calls to emotion. I think you, rather arrogantly, assumed that I haven't tried to learn about the burka and the justification and purpose of it :rolleyes:. I've participated in this thread from the beginning and participated in similar threads on the Islam forum, I haven't arrogantly assumed anything.
Incidentally, for many muslims the burka isn't a religious obligation, but a cultural one.

Gbear wrote: »

They often overlap but we don't make all things that are immoral illegal.
Is it moral to laugh at someone with a limp? I don't think so.
Should it be made illegal?
Or what about the aforementioned infidelity?

Just because all thats immoral isn't illegal doesn't mean that all that is illegal isn't immoral. Morality should be relevant to law, as law is just the code of minimal moral conduct deemed necessary by society. (I know in practise it's not perfect, but this is the idea of laws).

Gbear wrote: »

The law as it is isn't necessarily law as it should be. We're not having this debate on the basis that all laws are just.
You don't believe that I think muslims or any other culture should be allowed to flaunt local laws to facilitate their culture.
Nothing I've said should lead you that conclusion.

Well, you said : In "multicultural" countries, foreign cultures are allowed to exist in parallel. I don't think that's going to be possible for much longer.. I assumed your point was this was a bad thing and that we shouldn't tell those of other cultures to not follow their cultures. Because if we can tell them they can't follow all their customs here, and this leads to them pulling out of Ireland because their customs would break our laws, then so what?

Gbear wrote: »

True. I've had alot of debates on this and sometimes I forget that I haven't laid out everything.:o

What I have in my head and what ends up on the screen sometimes loses a bit in translation and ambiguity is the result.
But it's hard to spot until someone who isn't me points it out.

Ok .

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Buts it not their choice, equally so if they are being abused or brainwashed.

But again, ALLLL religious people, or at least the ones who keep the same one as that which they were given from birth by their parents, are brainwashed into believing it.
Are you stating that being the result of religious brainwashing invalidates your ability to make decisions?
Hey, if you can make a case for it, fine, but there's probably more brainwashed religious people than there are people who aren't.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Such abuses never stop at the persons front door. It effects their kids (do you really think kids will have a better time if they are told in their secular education that forcing someone to wear something is wrong, and told at home that their mother must wear the burka?), it effects their interactions with other members of the public (the men who force their wives would force everyones wives if they could), it effects society.

Lot's of things affect kids. ****ty parenting and where you draw the line between bad parenting and abuse or negligence is another debate.

For the women themselves, I see it as similar to any other kind of domestic abuse. If they want to leave the person they're with they have to make the step. If they can't make that step for fear for their safety, or their immortal soul, or whatever, I don't think you can forcibly help them.
Maybe they don't want help. Maybe they are perfectly happy in the enforced tyranny. Ultimately, they do make a decision that their honour is preserved or whatever.
To differentiate the people who are perfectly happy to wear the burqa from the people who are too afraid to speak I do not believe that you can come up with some arbitrary law that discriminates against the people who have a legitimate right to wear something that is important to them.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Drugs are banned because they are perceived as being more damaging to society (by the law makers). Incompetence of law makers aside, that's how its supposed to work and while some time in the future we my achieve a fully free society were individuals can self regulate their actions so as to negatively impact each other as little as possible, that wont be achieved if we allow incredibly negative social memes to stew behind closed doors.
Do you accept that the burka effects individuals who wear it? Negatively or positively?
Do you accept that the burka effects society? Negatively or positively?

Again, it's arbitrary, and it's taking away adults right to choose when the only person who will directly suffer from their choice is themselves.
I don't think the government's job is to make society perfect.
Why stop at banning burqa's? If you've decided that government should improve society then surely they should ban a whole host of things that negatively impact on us?
To a certain extent, as far as government intervention is involved, I don't care how harmful it is. I don't think it's logically sound to take that as the only criteria.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But who are they to make choices for themselves? Why should anyone and everyone be allowed to make all decisions for themselves? This is the problem with "who are you" whataboutery, taken to its logical conclusion, how does anyone justify doing anything? It doesn't matter who I am, it only matters if my argument is rational.

Ok. Who decides where you draw the line? You've come up with this arbitrary notion that some people are too brainwashed to be allowed to make their own decisions.
How brainwashed do you have to be to have your rights removed?
What rights should be removed and why?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

More calls to emotion. I think you, rather arrogantly, assumed that I haven't tried to learn about the burka and the justification and purpose of it :rolleyes:. I've participated in this thread from the beginning and participated in similar threads on the Islam forum, I haven't arrogantly assumed anything.
Incidentally, for many muslims the burka isn't a religious obligation, but a cultural one.

I don't really care what reason a person chooses to clothe themselves in something. That's their business. It doesn't affect me and it's their choice.
You've made an arbitrary threshold of brainwashing and clothing and decided that they can't intersect.
The "Who are you to etc..." argument is perfectly valid. I believe the owness is on you to prove why rights should be taken from these people.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Just because all thats immoral isn't illegal doesn't mean that all that is illegal isn't immoral. Morality should be relevant to law, as law is just the code of minimal moral conduct deemed necessary by society. (I know in practise it's not perfect, but this is the idea of laws).

Then morality doesn't come into it.
It isn't enough to make something illegal on it's own. Something else needs to occur. It can therefore be discounted from the argument or at least be discounted without another factor qualifying it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well, you said : In "multicultural" countries, foreign cultures are allowed to exist in parallel. I don't think that's going to be possible for much longer.. I assumed your point was this was a bad thing and that we shouldn't tell those of other cultures to not follow their cultures. Because if we can tell them they can't follow all their customs here, and this leads to them pulling out of Ireland because their customs would break our laws, then so what?

Ah. Derp on my part.

I meant that we can no longer tolerate these cultures living in paralell and they do have to be subject to our own laws.
Furthermore, (to briefly stumble back into the children debate) I believe that children should have the right to be educated properly at the expense of what in my view isn't much of a right at all - the right for parents to control their children.
If muslims or any other group wished to participate in our society, they would have to accept that their children would be educated in this fashion.

I may have given the impression that I'm one of the "respect other people's culture" types. Feel free to be as disdainful of other cultures as you wish.

My problem is that I don't think it's government's place to decide what is good for us. I think we need to be free to make our own decisions and barring some certified medical difficulties, you should respect people's rights to self-determine.


It would take no small amount of courage to go against beliefs that you have held for so long but the degree of subjugation is such that I think the only way to truly break it's hold isn't to stop it by force but to give them the tools to make the step themselves if they wish.
It's a battle that a woman needs to win herself. I think society can and should help but in my opinion it cheapens the value of it if you just fight it for her.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Being brainwashed certainly calls into question your ability to make rational decisions. If your ability to make rational decisions is sufficiently compromised, and it effects the state, then I think the state should intervene.


Who draws the lines now? I haven't made an arbitrary decision, I've investigated. Have you? If your ability to make rational decision is sufficently compromised that it hurts society, then society should intervene.

At the moment the way we take is in fact arbitrary so it's a good point actually. Being 18 doesn't magically make you a good decision maker.

I have toyed with the idea of a quasi-technocracy.
Essentially, the country would be run by people qualified to do so (rather than politicians).
Similarly, you could demand that people prove they're capable of being citizens before they graduate from having the rights and prohibitions of children to being fully fledged adults with everything that entails.

However, before you can ban the burqa or anything else because they're too brainwashed, you must first establish a metric for brainwashing and determine what amount of rights a particular amount of brainwashing gets you.

You also need to establish a system where rights are only given to people who earn them by doing more than not dying for 18 years.
Right now our system is (broadly speaking) that you're an adult at 18 and that you get full rights from that point. Within that structure, banning particular people from wearing things doesn't work.
It's built on very shaky ground and would collapse if seriously challenged by law, just like our nonsense blasphemy law that will crumble away sooner or later.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The burka effects society as a whole, much more than instances of spousal abuse. I understand its hard to argue that the State should intervene in cases were the women are too afraid to come forward, but I also know that I wouldn't hesitate to intervene if a relative of mine was being abused, regardless of whether she wanted me to or not.

I don't believe that it does affect society in any intrinsic way.
Each individual who's oppressed has a choice. Even if someone has a gun to your head you have a choice. The choice might subsequently result in your death but you can still choose it.
The right course of action is to empower women who want to make that choice by reassuring them that whatever threats are against them for disobeying cannot be carried out.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are mixing up things which effect society and things which effect the individual. The governments job is to encourage the perfect society, however not necessarily perfect individuals. If something is a danger to society, then its the governments duty to step in and stop it/regulate it.

I completely disagree with this. I think if society itself as a whole wants to move in a particular direction then that's fine but serving people is all I want out of government. I want it to protect the maximum amount of freedom possible for all people.
I don't want government to really have any will at all.
I want it to protect us if we're attacked, maintain the laws and keep people alive if they can't do so for themselves.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You should care about their reasons, as thats the point for this thread. The burka is not just a piece of clothing, its an incredibly misogynistic cultural interpretation of a misogynistic religious obligation (Hijab). The people who want teh burka don't just want the burka, they want subjugation of women.

I don't care what they want. Women need to know that they have power over their own destiny when they come here. If they understand that and trust the government to protect them as it would any other person, if they want to leave the oppression they can. If they don't want to, they shouldn't have to.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But the qualifying factor is "does this immoral action effect society as a whole", so you can't just discount morality from the argument. You can argue that immorality is implied in something being illegal, but you can't say its irrelevant to it being illegal. Are there any actions that are illegal but not, in some way (think moral notions of ownership or social responsibility), immoral?

A non-immoral action that is illegal is consuming a banned drug.
Stabbing someone while drugged is immoral because you're stabbing someone, just like consuming alcohol is fine but doing so and getting behind the wheel of a car is not.
I dispute the idea that some women wearing the burqa is intrinsically bad for society.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is it not the governments decision to ensure that individuals in society act in ways that we, as a society, have decided is good for society? Is that not what laws are for?

Not in my view. In the US huge swathes of the population think that homosexuality is bad for society.
Who's to say they're wrong? What does "good" or "bad" for society mean?
If you instead just let people do whatever they want so long as it doesn't compromise other people's freedom's* then you don't encounter that problem.

*Freedoms to be decided upon once the principle is accepted. Another tangent to be had there that i'd rather avoid.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its very easy to talk about the value of a fight when you don't need to fight it yourself. Is beating sickness or an injury more valuable if you do it with no pain killers or medicine? What about the people who fail because they dont get sufficient help, are they not worth it?

I didn't really mean some intangible sense of achievement.
I meant that if a woman overthrows any oppressive element of her culture, she's beaten that oppression. She has made herself free and discovered how and what it entails.

If you just hand her one element of freedom I don't think she's learned anything. She mightn't have to wear a burqa anymore but I see no reason why she wouldn't still be subservient to her husband.

Gbear wrote: »

At the moment the way we take is in fact arbitrary so it's a good point actually. Being 18 doesn't magically make you a good decision maker.

Its more pragmatic than arbitrary I would think. Something specific needs to be chosen as a line between child and adult, 18 is when most people are biologically adult and have finished their education and are expected to get a job or aim for a specific career, so its not like someone just pulled the number 18 out of the air when making the laws around age of consent.

Gbear wrote: »

I have toyed with the idea of a quasi-technocracy.
Essentially, the country would be run by people qualified to do so (rather than politicians).
Similarly, you could demand that people prove they're capable of being citizens before they graduate from having the rights and prohibitions of children to being fully fledged adults with everything that entails.

However, before you can ban the burqa or anything else because they're too brainwashed, you must first establish a metric for brainwashing and determine what amount of rights a particular amount of brainwashing gets you.

You also need to establish a system where rights are only given to people who earn them by doing more than not dying for 18 years.
Right now our system is (broadly speaking) that you're an adult at 18 and that you get full rights from that point. Within that structure, banning particular people from wearing things doesn't work.
It's built on very shaky ground and would collapse if seriously challenged by law, just like our nonsense blasphemy law that will crumble away sooner or later.

I am not arguing for a technocracy, so this doesn't effect what I am saying. Society can already step in it perceives people to be doing something suitably damaging to society - pyramid schemes are illegal, no matter how many people may want to participate with them. I am not saying every decision every makes needs to be measured, but when a specific decision is so clearly lacking in rationality and damaging to society, society can act on it.

Gbear wrote: »

I don't believe that it does affect society in any intrinsic way.
Each individual who's oppressed has a choice. Even if someone has a gun to your head you have a choice. The choice might subsequently result in your death but you can still choose it.

Its not much of a choice if you are being physically threatened. Its no choice at all if you are brainwashed. This reminds me of the religious argument that we are given free choice to follow god and the counter argument that we are threatened with eternity in hell if we don't, ergo not much of a choice.

Gbear wrote: »

The right course of action is to empower women who want to make that choice by reassuring them that whatever threats are against them for disobeying cannot be carried out.

You can empower women at the same time as banning the burka. You can empower women by banning the burka.

Gbear wrote: »

I completely disagree with this. I think if society itself as a whole wants to move in a particular direction then that's fine but serving people is all I want out of government. I want it to protect the maximum amount of freedom possible for all people.
I don't want government to really have any will at all.
I want it to protect us if we're attacked, maintain the laws and keep people alive if they can't do so for themselves.

Nothing in there disagrees with what I said. A perfect society is one which maximises the happiness of each individual and minimises the discord, ergo giving people as much freedom as possible up until the point where that freedom infringes upon someone else's freedom. I think you just disagree with some of the actions I think society needs to do to protect itself and help people who can't do it for themselves.

Gbear wrote: »

I don't care what they want. Women need to know that they have power over their own destiny when they come here. If they understand that and trust the government to protect them as it would any other person, if they want to leave the oppression they can. If they don't want to, they shouldn't have to.

If you dont care what they want then you don't understand why I am arguing against it, so you can never understand my side of the debate.

Gbear wrote: »

A non-immoral action that is illegal is consuming a banned drug.
Stabbing someone while drugged is immoral because you're stabbing someone, just like consuming alcohol is fine but doing so and getting behind the wheel of a car is not.

Consuming a banned drug is immoral. Even if the act itself is not immoral (if you make the drug yourself instead of buying it from a criminal) you are breaking the law, adding discord to society and causing financial and social hardships (down the line) to others.

Gbear wrote: »

I dispute the idea that some women wearing the burqa is intrinsically bad for society.

You really need to understand its not just a case of wearing the burka, its deeper than that.

Gbear wrote: »

Not in my view. In the US huge swathes of the population think that homosexuality is bad for society.
Who's to say they're wrong? What does "good" or "bad" for society mean?
If you instead just let people do whatever they want so long as it doesn't compromise other people's freedom's* then you don't encounter that problem.

*Freedoms to be decided upon once the principle is accepted. Another tangent to be had there that i'd rather avoid.

"We, as a society" is not the same as "we, as a group of individuals". Acting as a society doesn't mean simple majority voting, we need safeguards to ensure that majorities don't trample over the rights of minorities. We, as a society need to recognise the difference between individuals acting in a manner which the majority doesn't like and in-groups proposing social retardation for women (or gays or any other group or individuals). The burka is not just a piece of clothing.

Gbear wrote: »

I didn't really mean some intangible sense of achievement.
I meant that if a woman overthrows any oppressive element of her culture, she's beaten that oppression. She has made herself free and discovered how and what it entails.

If you just hand her one element of freedom I don't think she's learned anything.

Good for her. What you are saying here is that women, blacks, gays etc today in the west are lacking something because they don't have to go through the same social hardships as those who originally fought for equality in the 40s, 50s, 60's etc. Women/blacks/gays etc born today do not have to go through the same social hardships as those 100 years ago and this is a good thing. They shouldn't be expected to individually go through similar hardships to ensure they truly appreciate their freedoms. Society is better for not having them do it.

Gbear wrote: »

She mightn't have to wear a burqa anymore but I see no reason why she wouldn't still be subservient to her husband.

I never said banning the burka was the only thing we should do, I also advocate a unified secular education system and more social integration for foreign cultures.

Gbear wrote: »

Is it specific? You're currently talking about the burqa and muslims but most people are subject to being brainwashed as children. What reason can you give that relegates the ability of muslims to make decisions below other religious people?
And why if you're doing that, do you prevent them from wearing what they want but not extend that to other rights? You're trying to establish that they are incapable of making a particular decision because they can't reason effectively due to brainwashing. Why is it particular rather than in general?

Pragmatism. Children will always end up with brainwashed traits (how many people support the football team their parenst supported?), you simply can't stop all of it. So you pick and choose the worse offenders. Pyramid schemes are illegal, no matter how many people would want to participate. False advertising is illegal, no matter how many people would be brainwashed into believing it.

Gbear wrote: »

The point is that if they know the state will back them up, then the threat is less threatening.
And until you can come up with a metric for being brainwashed and why it's a reason to take away particular freedoms but not others, the point doesn't hold.

Tell that to western women in abusive relations. There are plenty of long terms sufferers of abuse who didn't come forward for a long time because they were afraid state help would fall through and they would be in a worse situation than before.

Gbear wrote: »

You could "empower" women by forcing them all to go to college, or ban them from cooking or cleaning or being housewives.
Taking away a right is never an empowerment, by it's very definition.

And yet you said before we should make children all go to secular schools. how is that not empowering them by forcing them somewhere they (or their parents) might not want to go?
You said before that women forced to wear the burka should have to make the choice to renounce it themselves, as that makes it more meaningful. Is that not empowering them by taking away a right, the right to simply not be oppressed and brainwashed?

Gbear wrote: »

Again we differ. I think it's up to an individual to maximise happiness because they are the only one truly capable and with the personal interest to do so.
I disagree with the arbitrariness of the criteria you've come up with to define people who can't do it for themselves.

The problem with that is that an individuals person interest in their own happiness can very quickly step all over other peoples attempts at happiness. Its not societies job to tell people exactly how to be happy, but it is societies job to limit everyone's attempts at happiness, if they adversely others.

Gbear wrote: »

Discord to society? Financial and social hardships? That's just plain ol' bollocks I'm afraid.
If I have a weed plant in my back garden and use it to make joints for my own personal use, what discord am I causing? What financial hardship?
And saying that it's immoral to consume a banned drug because it's banned is a bit of a tautology.
Not everything that is banned is immoral, not everything that is immoral is banned.

I never said that law is infallible. Its made by people who can act on their own personal interests rather than the greater good. The thing is, assuming you disagree with a law, its better for society if you get act to get the law removed or altered, rather than act like it doesn't matter. Even if you are breaking the law in isolation (eg, like you said, growing your own drugs and therefore not supporting any other law breakers) by breaking the law, you cause society to react to that law breaking which causes a strain on society (it costs money for society to chase after law breakers and subsequently deal with them, try to educate people not break the law etc.). Yes it is a tautology, but the correct action is to change the law, not to keep straining it.

Gbear wrote: »

The fact of that matter is that while majority shouldn't rule, as we see in America with the stumbling blocks to gay rights or the fight to keep creationism out of science classes, the law is pushed by the majority and whatever they believe, whether it's actually immoral or not, can often be enshrined in law.

And we see that the correct action for people in support of gay marriage is to try and change the law, not to act like it doesn't exist and to hell with the consequences and difficulties.

Gbear wrote: »

The oppression of women in muslim-related cultures isn't only manifested by the burqa. It's only an element of it. Banning it achieves nothing.
It's like banning racism and then saying "yay, we beat racism".

No, its like banning "whites/blacks only" signs and saying, "well done, but that was one step of many". No-one has said on this thread that banning the burka is all you need do, not by a long shot.

Gbear wrote: »

With homosexual and black rights there wasn't the same degree of self-oppression.
If a women believes she is inferior or deserves to be oppressed for whatever reason, then banning one of the manifestations of that oppression - the burqa - acheives nothing. They aren't freed by being prevented from wearing burqas.
If on the other hand, they choose to not wear it because they don't agree with the principles then they are free (so long as we maintain their freedom).
Without making a case for why they shouldn't be seen as adults you have no case here at all.

You still don't get it. The burka is not just a piece of clothing. There is already social support in place for abused women, oppression of women is knowingly illegal in the west, and yet nothing has change for the women oppressed because the men controlling them don't care and the women are too afraid or brainwashed to do anything about it (assuming their men let know about it). By banning the burka, its sends a completely unavoidable message to them that oppression of women is not acceptable. How else do you expect to get this message across? You argue for unified secular schools, but you will still have people complain about freedoms being taken away using very similar arguments to you to justify parents having the freedom to indoctrinate their children.

Gbear wrote: »

I don't see what's the point of banning the burqa then. It's not going to make much of a difference in how the oppressed women see themselves. It only attacks their belief system. It doesn't undermine it.

How does it not undermine it? Why does it being one step of several mean its no longer important or necessary?

Gbear wrote: »

You've mentioned a few times that I'm using emotional arguments. I think that's all you're doing.
You're trying to ban the burqa because you don't like it. You have undoubtedly the best intentions and of course I agree with you with how terrible an idea they are but that isn't enough for enshrining something in law if the law system is to have any integrity.

Oh FFS, read the damn thread, I've debunked this BS before. Its not the burka, its what it represents, its what it is a tool for. I don't care about people wearing hoodies, you can walk around dressed as a ghost all day for all I care. The burka is not just an item of clothing, its a manifestation and tool based on centuries of misogynistic oppression that seeks to self replicate and infect everywhere it goes (remember that its a cultural artefact that has latched on Islam). We can justifiably ban ban ideas if they are bad enough for society. We ban pyramid schemes even though some people want them because they a danger to everyone, we ban speeding even though some people want to because its a danger to everyone, so we can burkas (as a way of battling misogyny) because its a danger to everyone.

If you disagree, then you really should be able, after 43 pages of discussions, explain how the burka and what it represents and strives for, is not bad for society?

Nodin wrote: »

..... automatically presuming that both are occurring? Which really is a form of sexism in itself.

Claiming that I am just automatically presuming these simply because I am a man is also sexist. Any chance we can get past the accusations of sexism or racism and actually engage with my arguments?

Nodin wrote: »

"simplistic high horse bollocks" is the first thing that came to mind reading that. Should a more indepth criticism come to me, I'll revert.

How about an explanation first?

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, banning things clearly leads to secularism and social integration. I mean look how well the penal laws and the like worked here. Or the Shahs efforts in Iran.

Banning "white/black only" situations in the US certainly helped social integration for black people, wouldn't you say? You are advocating the same libertarian "we shouldn't ban anything" nonsense that has been thrown out without any justification over the entirety of this thread. You need to explain why this specific instance of banning is wrong, not just make fallacious connections to oppressive bannings in the past. Otherwise you are implying that banning anything is inherently problematic for social integration, which would call into question every law.

Nodin wrote: »

I never referred to your gender. The presumption that all women act in a certain way due to coercion or "brainwashing" is sexist regardless of the gender of the person expressing same.

Where's the presumption? Have you read the thread? I've explained my reasoning, I've examined the reasoning for the burka. The men who advocate the burka are also brainwashed, but its the women who end up the victim. Where's the sexism?

Nodin wrote: »

Its fairly self explanatory. When I can distance myself enough to expand without breaching the charter, I may revert.

It doesn't explain anything, its just a derogatory comment. Care to explain why you think it?

Nodin wrote: »

....a different situation entirely. I've given two specific examples with regard to religion and associated clothing, I'd suggest you deal with those.

No. The situation is analogous to this except for the fact that black people where never, as a rule, indoctrinated to the extent of defending the racial segregation. You don't get to ignore something relevant because you can't refute it.

Nodin wrote: »

Am I now? Thats fascinating. Where did I advocate that?

You countered a specific proposed ban with a few examples of unjust bans imposed by oppressive, self interested groups. At best, you are arguing that the existence of instances of unjust banning means that all proposed bannings are inherently unjust. Alternatively, you are arguing that this specific ban is unjust simply because unjust bans can exist, which is ridiculous.

Nodin wrote: »

Do please explain how the references to past bannings are fallacious.

Pointing out that certain past bannings have been unjust is irrelevant as there have been bannings in the past that have been just. You need specific reasons why this specific banning is unjust.

Nodin wrote: »

A false dichotomy.

All laws are, in some way, bannings. If you are denouncing bannings in general, you are therefore denouncing laws.

Has any of you Dick Heads ever lived in one of these backward Countries? Well I have and its from experience, having by Law to wear one of these and yes it was for my own good. So get off your backsides and go out and experience the World rather than reading up on it.
It should be banned in the West as it is NOT our Culture.

Bunch of lefty do gooders.

Nodin wrote: »

You've proof that 100% of women who were the Burka do so from intimidation and "brain washing"? Please do provide this.

I have explained my reasoning already in this thread, several times. It doesn't do what it supposedly sets out to do (ensure womens equality and safety in social situations with men), it does the opposite in fact. It makes women more set apart from men, even if they were allowed to be in the company of men, than if they didn't wear it. Its an incredibly shallow opinion of womens place and effect in society, which only serves to ensure the domination of the men its supposedly protecting the women from and making them equal to. I've asked all through this thread (and looked on other forums) for justifications that don't fall afoul of this, justifications that show the burka to be at least somewhat rational and to not be damaging to society (and, preferably, to account for the fact that thsi supposedly justifiable and rational choice only seems to be advocate by a small, particularly misogynistic subset of Islam). I'm still waiting.

Nodin wrote: »

Another fallacious comparison.

Another empty declaration. This is getting tiresome. Drop the childishness, explain you points, engage in the debate.

Nodin wrote: »

I think the burka is a piece of cloth.

And that is why you are woefully unqualified to talk about the banning of it. The burka is NOT just a piece of cloth, its a part of a particular interpretation of Hijab, an especially irrational and misogynistic interpretation. Do you know how infuriating it is to be constantly contradicted on the basis that I "don't know the reasoning of 100% of the women who wear the burka" by people who don't know any of the reasons?

Nodin wrote: »

And again, that patronising, condascending assumption. It really is stomach churning.

And again, no actual explanation fo your point, just a derogatory declaration.

Nodin wrote: »

Bit of selective history there. The ban on coverings lead to a massive backlash and was part of the rise of Khomeni.

Accuse me of selective history and then imply the ban on coverings was fundamental to the rise of Khomeni as if there weren't a whole range of religious, social, economical and political reasons for his Khomeni (wasn't the ban enacted in 1936 and lifted in 1941 and the revolution in 1979?).

Nodin wrote: »

I never denounced bannings in general. I denounced some specific bans for specific reasons.

And then implied this particular banning is unjust simply because it's a banning - guilt by association.

Gbear wrote: »

Define worst offenders.

The ones that negatively effect society the most.

Gbear wrote: »

And aside from the hypocrisy of the government banning pyramid schemes when that's essentially what social welfare is, I think if it's your money you should be free to do what you want with it.

On the false advertising front, plenty of people still get ripped off on the internet or with the "Prince of Nigeria" style con-jobs.
A fool and his money are soon parted.

Shouldn't we protect people against those who would lie to them to steal from them? Even if part of that involves protecting people from themselves?

Gbear wrote: »

Again, this arbitrariness makes poor laws. You've no metric to define harm. You've no metric to define brainwashing. You're just going with your gut that burqa's are bad and that's fair enough but I don't think it's enough to base law upon.

I have explained, several times the social problems with the burka. I'm not just "going with my gut". Its not arbitrariness to recognise that we can pragmatically only deal with some forms of brainwashing and coercion, and to propose countering the worst offenders.

Gbear wrote: »

I doubt the support structure is perfect for women but ultimately it's on their heads to make a change in their lives. They are adults and if they are suffering because of the illegal actions of others they also have to take responsibility. I'm not saying that's easy but you don't ban men from being in contact with women because they sometimes abuse them, even if it meant that abuse no longer occurred.

Isn't that essentially the justification for the burka? Women need to "take responsibility" for the effect they have on men? Thats ludicrous, why should they take responsibility for something that isn't their fault? How is it not better for the state to intervene by default, rather than on invitation? It is not just the individual women effected by these abuses, society is too.

Gbear wrote: »

Children are different. They have special rights (I think an education should be the in the top 4 or 5, after food, clothing and shelter). They also don't have other rights - driving and so forth. Their parents rights to make them do what they want are secondary to the children's rights.

Not according to our constitution.

Gbear wrote: »

They have that right already. Whether they choose to exercise it or not is their choice until you come up with a standardised form of brainwashing testing.

How can they exercise that right if they have been raised to believe that to do so is eternity in hell?

Gbear wrote: »

But right now people wearing burqa's do have that right. They may be personally incapable but essentially, as adults, that's their problem.

The burka is more than a piece of cloth, it doesn't just effect the wearer.

Gbear wrote: »

I think it's an insignificant step.
Attitudes are what are going to need to be changed and antagonising people by forcing them into one thing or another doesn't help that.
Educate people. If they start feeling stupid for holding a particular belief that'll change their tune quick enough.

By banning the burka, you are educating them that holding the believe that the burka is necessary is a stupid believe that our society rejects. You can say all we need to is force their kids to be educated in a secular education system, but to their parents you will be taking their right to indoctrinate their kids, a right that they see as important as wearing the burka. To them, you will still be infringing on one of their rights in order to take away an aspect of their religion and culture, so they will react in the same way.

Gbear wrote: »

I've already explained why children and schools are not the same as adults.
Burqa's are just pieces of clothing, just as racist slurs are just words.
You can either grab at each manifestation of bigotry as they spring up like weeds or you can undermine the reasoning behind these meme's and defeat them completely.
You're going for hedge clippers. Education is weed killer, and racism and misogyny are only 2 of the many weeds it's effective against.

You have your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed. If racial slurs were just words then why would there be a problem with people simply saying in a non derogatory context? The burka is not just a piece of clothing, its a physical projection of a social destructive way of life. Sometimes you need to clip the hedges in order to reach the roots.

Gbear wrote: »

Besides from the fact that I don't think you've actually made the case that it is bad for society, I don't really care whether it is or not.
Making that case would do nothing for the argument that you shouldn't have the right to stop women wearing the burqa unless you can come up with a reason why they can't make decisions for themselves.

You really think we can't justifiably stop people from doing things that are bad for society, just because they really, really want to do them? Its the other way around, it doesn't really matter if someone honestly wants to do something if its bad for everyone else, you can't speed or steal or hurt people just because you want to. Being unable to make a decision for themselves is secondary in my mind, most religious people are brainwashed into their beliefs (imo), but I dont propose banning all beliefs for that reason. Its the damage of the belief that interests me. If you want to prove me wrong, you need to show that it doesn't matter to society if anyone wears the burka and that will require you to actually understand what the burka is (ie more than a piece of cloth), which you clearly don't.