Burka ban

Brown Bomber · 24-09-2013 11:09PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This girl posted her view on a publicly viewable blog, thus opening it for public criticism. You were the one who brought it into this thread, did you honestly expect that no one would be allowed to respond to it?
I don't respect her beliefs because they are stupid and sexist to both men and women.
I am not insisting that she wear any specific item of clothing, I am insisting that she doesn't wear one specific item of clothing.

You need to drop the emotive slant in every response you make, Brown Bomber, it just undermines anything you try to say. What was to stop me from simply responding to this post with:
"When did I ask for your "view"? Why can't you respect my beliefs? What right do you have to insist on which views this poster that you have never met has?"
besides my desire to have a functioning discussion?

I do respect your beliefs though I am not supporting criminalising the wearing of items of clothing you may choose wear. Am I?

What gives you the right to insist that this girl you have never met, who has never harmed you in anyway whatsoever cannot wear items of clothing that you don't approve of?

Brown Bomber · 24-09-2013 11:11PM

Piliger wrote: »

If you are so naive to think that the vast majority of those wearers are doing so by their free will .....

Didn't know you had statistics. Don't keep them to yourself...:)

tdv123 · 24-09-2013 11:13PM

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

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm pretty sure most in this forum would argue against those who support female genital mutilation, arranged marriages and honour killings. Are we "bigoted fascists" for trying to "impose our views" on those minorities too?

Were did I say support any of that? The last time I checked this thread was specifically about a burqa.

Surely if there is any ban it should be a ban against people who force people to wear specific pieces of clothing. Not banning a specific of clothing.

I don't see any difference between a man who forces a woman to wear a burqa or man who forces a woman to wear a bra. Both are abusive scum. If women want to wear it out of their own genuine free will then they should be allowed to wear it & if it makes me or anyone else uncomfortable then that's our own issues we have to overcome.

robindch · 24-09-2013 11:17PM

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

tdv123 wrote: »

Surely if there is any ban it should be a ban against people who force people to wear specific pieces of clothing. [...] If women want to wear it out of their own genuine free will then should be allowed to wear it.

And how do you propose to find the men and women who force other women to wear it? And how do you propose to find out if a women is really, really wearing it out of an unencumbered choice?

And in your experience of women, have you ever noticed massive groups of them demanding to wear exactly the same colorless clothes all of the time?

Brown Bomber · 24-09-2013 11:17PM

jank wrote: »

The 'Son of Sam' believed that his neigherbours whom was possesed by a demon commanded him to carry out his own killings. There will always be nutcases in the world who think God, Jesus, Aliens, Alex Fergusan is commanding them to commit certain acts.

As I said, please show me the text in the Quran that permits one to kill their wife if they dont wear a viel.

Didn't you know that Muslims can't get mental illness? They just get very, very Muslim when they do something violent. Mental illness is reserved for white people like James Holmes, Jared Loughner and the Sandy Hook guy.

Did you see the headlines about the "Buddhist" spree killer at the Navy Yard? No? Neither did I...

Brown Bomber · 24-09-2013 11:19PM

robindch wrote: »

And how do you propose to find out if a women is really, really wearing it out of an unencumbered choice?

Have you tried asking?

Ever had a conversation with a woman in a burka? I have, once you overcome your prejudices you realise that there is a fully functional human being inside it.

Mark Hamill · 24-09-2013 11:21PM

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

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I do respect your beliefs ...

If you respected my beliefs then you wouldn't twist them so. But I don't care if you respect my beliefs, I only want you to respect the debate and drop the crass emotive slant you apply to everything.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What gives you the right to insist that this girl you have never met, who has never harmed you in anyway whatsoever cannot wear items of clothing that you don't approve of?

What gives you the right to insist that this poster you have never met, who has never harmed you in anyway whatsoever cannot have opinions that you don't approve of?

Shall I just resort to twisting your posts like this? Respect the debate the same way you do?

Not only did I already answer this question in the very post you quoted (but clearly didn't respect enough to read) but even if I hadn't, its just an inane point to make. If I am allowed agree with her wearing it (as you do) then why am I not allowed disagree with her wearing it? Since when does anyone have to qualify the right to disagree with something?

Delirium · 24-09-2013 11:24PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I just make it clear that it wasn't shared by myself or blogged originally as part of any argument. It was to share the views of a veil wearer. Wearers of the hijab are the only people's views who truly matter in this debate.

What in your view is more productive: a "feminist" shamelessly posting a mocking video of women eating in a restaurant wearing hijab or the honest opinions of a veil wearer?

The veil wearer. But you can't ignore the veil wearers that don't have the same experience as the example you posted. There are women who don't have freedom to choose whether to wear it or not. And the law applies, at least in France from what I've read, to anything that conceals a persons face. That can be a motorcycle helmet or balaclava also, so it's not aimed exclusively at Muslim women who wear the burka.

Be that as it may, I don't think someone should be arrested for wearing a burka or motorcycle helmet while walking down a high street.

Mark Hamill · 24-09-2013 11:25PM

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

tdv123 wrote: »

Were did I say support any of that? The last time I checked this thread was specifically about a burqa.

So if we are "bigoted fascists" for trying to "impose our views" on those minorities who support the burka, does that make you a "bigoted fascist" for trying to "impose your view" on those minorities who support FGM etc.?

Mark Hamill · 24-09-2013 11:26PM

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

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Have you tried asking?

Yes, but then you started asking who we were to criticise their responses.

Brown Bomber · 24-09-2013 11:36PM

koth wrote: »

The veil wearer. But you can't ignore the veil wearers that don't have the same experience as the example you posted. There are women who don't have freedom to choose whether to wear it or not. And the law applies, at least in France from what I've read, to anything that conceals a persons face. That can be a motorcycle helmet or balaclava also, so it's not aimed exclusively at Muslim women who wear the burka.

Be that as it may, I don't think someone should be arrested for wearing a burka or motorcycle helmet while walking down a high street.

I live in a part of the world where -20 degrees will soon be common and -30 and beyond is not unheard of. Balaclavas are commonplace. They serve a practical purpose, which is to stop your face freezing off.

To certain Muslim women wearing hijab also serves a practical purpose. It preserves their modesty in their opinion and makes them feel closer to God.

IMO no other person has the right to interfere in someone else's personal life to the extent of forcing/prohibiting the wearing of items of clothing on their own bodies when this is enforced through threats of punishment (or have the state do it in their name).

Nobody is defending Muslim women being forced to wearing the Hijab. What seems to be lost in this discussion is that Muslim women aren't the only victims of being forced to dress/behave in a certain way by an abusive partner, family member etc.

Each side is as bad as the other and are two sides of the same coin.

Brown Bomber · 24-09-2013 11:39PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So if we are "bigoted fascists" for trying to "impose our views" on those minorities who support the burka, does that make you a "bigoted fascist" for trying to "impose your view" on those minorities who support FGM etc.?

Comparing a dress to surgery ,,,, really?

Mark Hamill · 24-09-2013 11:47PM

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

Brown Bomber wrote: »

To certain Muslim women wearing hijab also serves a practical purpose. It preserves their modesty in their opinion and makes them feel closer to God.

What part of "we are atheists, we see their reasoning as patriarchal indoctrination" do you not get? They may claim a practical purpose, free of oppression, but by referencing god and nebulous ideas of modesty (seriously, how modest is it to think yourself so attractive that men saw anything of your face they would go wild?) they just undermine that, in our eyes. You have to remember the audience you are trying to sway, Brown Bomber, we don't see god, we see con artists abusing people.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What seems to be lost in this discussion is that Muslim women aren't the only victims of being forced to dress/behave in a certain way by an abusive partner, family member etc.

Are you talking about how the men pushing the burka are also victims of the same indoctrination that drives the burka in the first place? I said that ages ago.
Or is this just whataboutery?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Each side is as bad as the other and are two sides of the same coin.

But what's important is that you get to feel better than both :P

Mark Hamill · 24-09-2013 11:49PM

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

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Comparing a dress to surgery ,,,, really?

You don't get the context at all, you need to read back through the posts between me and tdv123.

tdv123 · 24-09-2013 11:52PM

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

robindch wrote: »

And how do you propose to find the men and women who force other women to wear it? And how do you propose to find out if a women is really, really wearing it out of an unencumbered choice?

And in your experience of women, have you ever noticed massive groups of them demanding to wear exactly the same colorless clothes all of the time?

It's the polices job to find that out. It's never easy finding out cases of abuse against women but banning the burqa won't solve the problem. If a man has a abusive personality he'll just find other ways to feed his abusive ego.

I'm sure they'd be demanding the right to wear bras if they were banned.

Gordon · 24-09-2013 11:56PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

IMO no other person has the right to interfere in someone else's personal life to the extent of forcing/prohibiting the wearing of items of clothing on their own bodies when this is enforced through threats of punishment (or have the state do it in their name).

This happens everywhere, I'm not saying it's right, just that it's fairly ubiquitous. You can't walk around naked in most countries in the world for example. And you can't be female and wear revealing clothing in some countries, for example.

tdv123 · 25-09-2013 12:01AM

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

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So if we are "bigoted fascists" for trying to "impose our views" on those minorities who support the burka, does that make you a "bigoted fascist" for trying to "impose your view" on those minorities who support FGM etc.?

I don't support the burqa I'd rather people don't wear it but it's not my business if somebody chooses to wear it, they have every right to.

Choosing a piece of clothing to wear is a civil liberty, destroying someones genitalia is physical abuse.

Mark Hamill · 25-09-2013 12:05AM

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

tdv123 wrote: »

I don't support the burqa I'd rather people don't wear it but it's not my business if somebody chooses to wear it, they have every right to.

Given the burka is primarily (solely) a muslim garb, enforced referencing muslim religious guidelines, indoctrinated under pain of punishment (spiritual or otherwise), you are going to have a hard time explaining how the vast majority of wearers "choose" to do so in any meaningful way.

tdv123 wrote: »

Choosing a piece of clothing to wear is a civil liberty

A civil liberty oppressed, if not obliterated, by the burka.

Also, you didn't actually answer my question:
if we are "bigoted fascists" for trying to "impose our views" on those minorities who support the burka, does that make you a "bigoted fascist" for trying to "impose your view" on those minorities who support FGM etc.?

Gbear · 25-09-2013 12:36AM

I'm religious and support the ban

To be clear I'm not calling anyone else a bigot when it comes to this matter.
My belief in personal freedom often puts me at odds with a lot of people on this forum and into bed with some curious allies.:P

Is there an element of bigotry and islamophobia present in this discussion? Probably. I'd imagine that there's certainly some people who'd make the sorts of nonsensical arguments against the burka that they'd also make against sikh being allowed to wear turbans or any other xenophobic sort of crap.

I don't think anyone on this forum is making that kind of argument however. It's a parallel argument to the one we're having and I think BB is maybe erroneously trying to mix the two together in places.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The bold parts show the problem. With adult consent, as you say, almost anything is fine. But any of these acts done without consent would be railed against by most people, and they would not be "bigoted fascists" for trying to "impose their views" and minorities who want to force things like FGM and arranged marriages on others, even if its their own children.

The distinction is one of intrinsicness.
It is intrinsic to children to be incapable of giving informed consent (given that the ability to give informed consent is, for better or worse, determined by age or, in certain cases, a decision determined by medical professionals with regards to sanity or mental disability.

It is not intrinsic to women to be incapable of giving informed consent about what they wear.
The decision to prohibit someone from doing something should require a strong reason behind it. The inertia of history means that often isn't the case with a lot of laws but that doesn't invalidate the principle (in other words, the question is not, "should the recreational drug of your choice be legalised", but "is the ban on it justified in the first place").
There is no good reason to ban any item of clothing I can imagine because there's nothing intrinsically bad about an item of clothing.

I should be free to wear a burka. A non-muslim women should be free to wear a burka. Therefore, unless you can show that a particular person is being coerced into wearing a burka, you should have no more power to prevent them from wearing it than prevent someone from wearing a gimp suit.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The burka is not something that the vast majority of wearers choose to wear as an adult. It is something indoctrinated into them from birth, under the threat of spiritual punishment (usually physical too). Indoctrination poisons the well of consent and pointing that out does not make me or anyone else a bigot.

The underlying logic of that position is that if someone can be coerced into doing something then it ought to be banned.

I'm not denying for a second that women are usually coerced into wearing the burka. I'm saying that it's irrelevant to the question whether or not wearing such garments should be legal in general.

Brown Bomber · 25-09-2013 02:07AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Given the burka is primarily (solely) a muslim garb, enforced referencing muslim religious guidelines, indoctrinated under pain of punishment (spiritual or otherwise), you are going to have a hard time explaining how the vast majority of wearers "choose" to do so in any meaningful way. ?

Like I said, why don't you ask a lady in a Burka? Have you ever actually spoken to one?

Then tell her you really care about her rights but only rights that you as a non-minority deem acceptable.

Then tell her opinion doesn't matter, that whatever she says is meaningless even when her opinion relates solely to herself because she is different and lesser to you because her religion is "stupid".

Then tell her you really do care again.

Brown Bomber · 25-09-2013 02:09AM

Gbear wrote: »

To be clear I'm not calling anyone else a bigot when it comes to this matter.
My belief in personal freedom often puts me at odds with a lot of people on this forum and into bed with some curious allies.:P

Is there an element of bigotry and islamophobia present in this discussion? Probably. I'd imagine that there's certainly some people who'd make the sorts of nonsensical arguments against the burka that they'd also make against sikh being allowed to wear turbans or any other xenophobic sort of crap.

I don't think anyone on this forum is making that kind of argument however. It's a parallel argument to the one we're having and I think BB is maybe erroneously trying to mix the two together in places.

The distinction is one of intrinsicness.
It is intrinsic to children to be incapable of giving informed consent (given that the ability to give informed consent is, for better or worse, determined by age or, in certain cases, a decision determined by medical professionals with regards to sanity or mental disability.

It is not intrinsic to women to be incapable of giving informed consent about what they wear.
The decision to prohibit someone from doing something should require a strong reason behind it. The inertia of history means that often isn't the case with a lot of laws but that doesn't invalidate the principle (in other words, the question is not, "should the recreational drug of your choice be legalised", but "is the ban on it justified in the first place").
There is no good reason to ban any item of clothing I can imagine because there's nothing intrinsically bad about an item of clothing.

I should be free to wear a burka. A non-muslim women should be free to wear a burka. Therefore, unless you can show that a particular person is being coerced into wearing a burka, you should have no more power to prevent them from wearing it than prevent someone from wearing a gimp suit.

The underlying logic of that position is that if someone can be coerced into doing something then it ought to be banned.

I'm not denying for a second that women are usually coerced into wearing the burka. I'm saying that it's irrelevant to the question whether or not wearing such garments should be legal in general.

I wanted to thank you for this post. You have put into words so many of my thoughts that I have been unable to.

Brown Bomber · 25-09-2013 02:16AM

Gordon wrote: »

This happens everywhere, I'm not saying it's right, just that it's fairly ubiquitous. You can't walk around naked in most countries in the world for example. And you can't be female and wear revealing clothing in some countries, for example.

Right but the point I am trying to make is that there is little if any difference between the stereotypical Moooslim shaking his fist and forcing his wife to cover up and the the extremists on the other side who also want to decide what a Muslim can/cannot wear also under threat of punishment.

I find it incredibly hypocritical for either side to object to the other when they both want to dominate.

Piliger · 25-09-2013 02:47AM

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

Gbear wrote: »

The distinction is one of intrinsicness.
It is intrinsic to children to be incapable of giving informed consent (given that the ability to give informed consent is, for better or worse, determined by age or, in certain cases, a decision determined by medical professionals with regards to sanity or mental disability.

This is nonsense. Children are commonly asked which parent they wish to live with. They also have the ability to give informed consent about many things. That they are unable to give informed consent about more serious matters such as sexual activity, legal activity etc. is another matter.

It is not intrinsic to women to be incapable of giving informed consent about what they wear.

What on earth does this mean ? What you apear to be saying is that a women is always free to chose what she wears. What about marriage ? Are you saying that a women is always free to chose when and to whom she marries ? That there is never any coercion to behave and act in a way that they do not chose ? Because the facts of life as it is actually lived in many religions and in many countries give a lie to this whole assertion.

The decision to prohibit someone from doing something should require a strong reason behind it. The inertia of history means that often isn't the case with a lot of laws but that doesn't invalidate the principle (in other words, the question is not, "should the recreational drug of your choice be legalised", but "is the ban on it justified in the first place").
There is no good reason to ban any item of clothing I can imagine because there's nothing intrinsically bad about an item of clothing.

That is a simplistic and meaningless statement in this context, because the burka is not being banned for being an item of clothing, like a scarf or a mini skirt or a pair of trousers.

The reason behind the effort to ban the burka is not as an item of clothing. It is because it erases and negates the very identity of the person wearing it in a disgusting dehumanising way.

I should be free to wear a burka. A non-muslim women should be free to wear a burka. Therefore, unless you can show that a particular person is being coerced into wearing a burka, you should have no more power to prevent them from wearing it than prevent someone from wearing a gimp suit.

Again this is simplistic and naive and an insult to women. It essentially denies the existence of coercion in the Islamic world. It denies it in the same way that the burka denies the human identity of a women wearing it.

So the coercion of Asian daughters into marriage doesn't exist unless someone proves it. The coercion of women in all manner of issues within the muslim communities in muslim countries doesn't exist because it cannot be proven in each case ? What utter nonsense !

The underlying logic of that position is that if someone can be coerced into doing something then it ought to be banned.

The underlying logic is that if someone can have their very identity as a human being, as a women, forcibly removed and erased and subjugated, then yes it ought to be banned.

If a farmer in the countryside here decides that his wife has to wear a balaclava every time she leaves the house. He threatens her that she will be raped, her face burned with acid, her daughter raped, if she does not comply - and she believes it because of how he and his brothers and wider family have consistently behaved over the generations. You will argue that because she will not testify that she is being forced ... then society should not interfere and allow whatever is happening to continue, and this women to continue to walk around the town in a balaclava, and appear in court in a balaclava, and teach children in class in this balaclava because "It is not intrinsic to women to be incapable of giving informed consent about what they wear." ??? What utter nonsense.

I'm not denying for a second that women are usually coerced into wearing the burka. I'm saying that it's irrelevant to the question whether or not wearing such garments should be legal in general.

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever and doesn't stand up to any common sense examination.

clairefontaine · 25-09-2013 05:09AM

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

It should be banned in airports, in airplanes, in schools, in playgrounds, in official capacities such as government employee, doctor, or nurse. And retailers should have the right to refuse entry to anyone wearing one. Police should also have the right that the face covering be removed when stopped n a car or in questioning or identifying a suspect or person of interest.

jank · 25-09-2013 06:21AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

She's a communist? What a woman! She may be a red but that's a red herring.

(I first read Marx in the 1960s and have never found a better explanation of the economic and social forces that move society. If someone comes up with one I, and I presume Maryam, will accept it.)

* cough* http://mises.org/

Delirium · 25-09-2013 08:38AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I live in a part of the world where -20 degrees will soon be common and -30 and beyond is not unheard of. Balaclavas are commonplace. They serve a practical purpose, which is to stop your face freezing off.

To certain Muslim women wearing hijab also serves a practical purpose. It preserves their modesty in their opinion and makes them feel closer to God.

And they can wear a hijab that doesn't cover their face, so their modesty is preserved.

IMO no other person has the right to interfere in someone else's personal life to the extent of forcing/prohibiting the wearing of items of clothing on their own bodies when this is enforced through threats of punishment (or have the state do it in their name).

I take that to mean you equally condemn any Muslim men that would force a woman to wear burka (or any other clothes) against her wishes?

It really depends on the why the clothing is required/prohibited. Most schools in Ireland require students to wear a uniform and it's generally an acceptable practise.

Nobody is defending Muslim women being forced to wearing the Hijab. What seems to be lost in this discussion is that Muslim women aren't the only victims of being forced to dress/behave in a certain way by an abusive partner, family member etc.

Each side is as bad as the other and are two sides of the same coin.

Nobody said it is only Muslim women. But is there any other group that has a tradition of a woman covering every inch of her body? The burka is banned for all people, so a Christian woman is equally banned from wearing one.

The problem with the ban is that it's the women that are supposedly being forced to wear the burka that suffer. They have to decide if they are more concerned about being punished by the state or by their father/brother/spouse.

If coercion is the problem, then the state should be targetting the people forcing women to wear the burka.

CruelCoin · 25-09-2013 08:45AM

I'm religious and support the ban

I think many people here are ignorant of what a burka actually is (covering the hair, i approve) as opposed to the niqab (covering the face, i don't approve).

If you're against the burka, then you should also be against hoodies in public places.

Delirium · 25-09-2013 08:49AM

I'm religious and support the ban

CruelCoin wrote: »

I think many people here are ignorant of what a burka actually is (covering the hair, i approve) as opposed to the niqab (covering the face, i don't approve).

If you're against the burka, then you should also be against hoodies in public places.

That's incorrect according to this wiki page

Penn · 25-09-2013 09:06AM

I'm religious and support the ban

While I do think that everybody should be able to wear whatever clothes they want, I think it's naive to suggest that Muslim women wear burkas/niqabs solely by their own choice. Their religion is why they wear it, evident by the fact that the percentage of non-muslim women who wear such clothing is so small as to be negligible.

They would not wear burkas if they were not Muslim. Regardless of whether they're forced into wearing it by a partner or they choose to wear it themselves, they do so due to their religion. It is not solely their own choice to wear it.

And as most people here would believe that religion is a man-made concept and not actual truth, then the extension of that would be that it was men who came up with the idea that Muslim women should wear burkas/niqabs and that without religion, the number of women who would choose to wear one based solely on their own choice would be miniscule.

There are similar examples through all religions. Hell, I'm sure people at Catholic Mass would say they "choose" to donate money to the church as the collection basket is being passed around, but if they weren't Catholic, they sure as sh*t wouldn't show up at Mass just to throw a few coins into the collection basket and leave.

In the vast, vast majority of cases, it is not a woman's choice to wear a burka/niqab. It's a religious requirement that the woman is choosing to follow because she believes she has to.

Penn · 25-09-2013 09:09AM

I'm religious and support the ban

CruelCoin wrote: »

I think many people here are ignorant of what a burka actually is (covering the hair, i approve) as opposed to the niqab (covering the face, i don't approve).

If you're against the burka, then you should also be against hoodies in public places.

No, that's a hijab. From my understanding, niqab permits the eyes to be visable, but the burka is full-body and includes a veil.

Burka ban

Comments