Burka ban

Cabaal · 25-09-2013 09:13AM

I'm non-religious and do not 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.

Really?
Thats your comparison?

The Balaclava serves a real world, practical use which has real world affects on you if you leave skin exposed especially if the weather is extremely cold.

The hijab is being worn due to maky uppy sky fairy reasons, there is no real world reason except the reason created by man. Its all in the head and again its pushed onto women from a very young age.

If you think a hijab is actually used by "choice" then find me a person who's never heard of the hijab or its use and ask would they wear it all the time in public, I bet they won't

smacl · 25-09-2013 09:30AM

I'm religious and support the ban

clairefontaine wrote: »

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.

I think rather than saying the burqa should be banned in such circumstances, it would make more sense to have clothing guidelines that effectively prohibited the burka but didn't target it explicitly, such that it would include balaclavas, ski masks, etc... I think it is also reasonable for any employer, public body, or school to enforce a dress code where they see fit. I'd tend to include any other location where the likelihood of crime being committed is higher to the extent that CCTV is a necessity, such as banks, post offices, prison visits, etc... FWIW, I'd also be all for banning hoodies with the hood up in many of these circumstances.

The right to remain effectively anonymous is fine, but it has to be limited out of necessity when it infringes on the perceived safety or well being of the larger population.

smacl · 25-09-2013 09:43AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Cabaal wrote: »

The Balaclava serves a real world, practical use which has real world affects on you if you leave skin exposed especially if the weather is extremely cold.

Funny enough, on a walking holiday in Morocco some years back, I used to wear long sleeved silk shirts and pyjama bottoms, and a silk wrap around my head. Made a lot of sense walking it a hot arid climate. Wouldn't make so much sense walking around Harvey Normans or Top Shop. Nor would a balaclava for that matter, and the latter might just annoy the security guards.

The fact that certain items of clothing are appropriate in certain contexts is not a good enough reason to say they are appropriate in any context. That holds true equally well for burqas, balaclavas an gimp suits.

While in Morocco, another group were also travelling around, and one of the women made the mistake of walking through one of the local villages in a bikini and light wrap around her legs. This bought her a light stoning from the local elder wimmin folk. Intolerance cuts both ways, and it makes sense to respect the traditions of the people around you.

Cabaal · 25-09-2013 10:29AM

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

smacl wrote: »

While in Morocco, another group were also travelling around, and one of the women made the mistake of walking through one of the local villages in a bikini and light wrap around her legs. This bought her a light stoning from the local elder wimmin folk. Intolerance cuts both ways, and it makes sense to respect the traditions of the people around you.

Which of course would mean in a western country you wouldn't hide your face

Just like in a eastern country you'd do what they wanted,

smacl · 25-09-2013 10:40AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Cabaal wrote: »

Which of course would mean in a western country you wouldn't hide your face

Yep, unless you were a hoody robbing a bike

Whether or not you ban the burqa, doesn't remove the fact that it isn't sensible to wear one in a western country, as it upsets many people's sensibilities. By wearing one in such circumstances, where you're aware that it upsets people, if could be construed as given two fingers to the society you're a part of.

Doesn't bother me personally, just reminds me of those little fellas in potato sacks from the first star wars movie.

Delirium · 25-09-2013 10:50AM

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Yep, unless you were a hoody robbing a bike

Whether or not you ban the burqa, doesn't remove the fact that it isn't sensible to wear one in a western country, as it upsets many people's sensibilities. By wearing one in such circumstances, where you're aware that it upsets people, if could be construed as given two fingers to the society you're a part of.

Doesn't bother me personally, just reminds me of those little fellas in potato sacks from the first star wars movie.

Guess we'll have to ban heavy metal/punk t-shirts now

25-09-2013 11:11AM

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

Piliger wrote: »

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.

...
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.

How exactly would banning the balaclava help here?
It will force her into her home or at risk of being sent to jail by the very people claiming to protect her. It won't make the farmer wake up and say "hey maybe that's not ok". I mean seriously, they're being threatened with rape and your solution is to ban a piece of flipping clothing or send them to jail?!
Banning an item of clothing like this is so ridiculous and futile, so counter productive, and does absolutely nothing to help women who need the help. In fact it probably makes them even harder to help, because now they are stuck at home and harder to find.
This is one group of people trying to take a choice away from women on what to wear vs another group of people trying to take the choice away from women on what to wear.
Why don't you go fight each other instead of imposing ridiculous laws and penalties on the woman caught in the middle, who may even choose in some cases to wear it, whether you understand or agree or not!

robindch · 25-09-2013 11:13AM

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

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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?

Color me suspicious, but I'm thinking that if somebody went up to a woman in a burka with a man -- her "guardian" -- standing beside her and asked her "Hey, you're wearing that because you really, really want to?", I think there's a fair chance she may not reply fully honestly, openly or frankly. As I said, color me suspicious, but I think that's how coercion works.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ever had a conversation with a woman in a burka?

Yes, many times.

And just visiting the other side of the argument briefly, I recall one feisty Brazilian friend of mine who visited Iran and Iraq some years back and commenting that the men in both countries were so uniformly appalling, that she was forced, for her own protection, to burkalize herself -- such was the level of gawping, pawing, feeling-up, poking, prodding and general sexual unpleasantness.

In such a society, where this kind of invasive unpleasantness is actively encouraged by religion, something as defensive as the burka must come as a blessed relief.

And from an atheist perspective, it's the old, familiar religious catch-22 -- creating a problem, then providing a control-freak solution to it.

smacl · 25-09-2013 11:34AM

I'm religious and support the ban

koth wrote: »

Guess we'll have to ban heavy metal/punk t-shirts now

Do they really offend anyone? Jedward or One Direction maybe. Mind you, I've had some choice comments about my Dead Kennedy's t-shirt back in the day.

Mark Hamill · 25-09-2013 12:43PM

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

Gbear wrote: »

To be clear I'm not calling anyone else a bigot when it comes to this matter.

I know you aren't calling anyone else a bigot, it was someone else who brought that into the discussion.

Gbear wrote: »

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.

But at the same time, shouldn't you be free to not wear the burka? Because the women who wear it are not free to stop wearing it, because of all the religious indoctrination that comes with it.

Gbear wrote: »

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

Your nearly there. The underlying logic is that 100% of the people who wear it have been coerced into doing so, through various types of religious indoctrination, some so effective that the women will become convinced to defend the burka themselves.

Mark Hamill · 25-09-2013 12:45PM

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

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Like I said, why don't you ask a lady in a Burka?

Here, you posted a blog from a burka wearing woman explaining her reasons for wearing the burka and when we questioned those reasons, you called us out on "who are we to question her reasons" etc. Its a bit rich to tell us to talk to a lady in a burka but at the same time tell us we can't disagree with her.

gaynorvader · 25-09-2013 12:47PM

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

clairefontaine wrote: »

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.

This exactly. Walking don the street, in a café, in one's own home are all fine, but wearing it everywhere is not. A balaclava would probably also be banned from most, if not all these places.

Mark Hamill · 25-09-2013 01:01PM

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

bluewolf wrote: »

How exactly would banning the balaclava help here?

What is your alternative?

bluewolf wrote: »

This is one group of people trying to take a choice away from women on what to wear vs another group of people trying to take the choice away from women on what to wear.

No its not. One group is trying to take a choice away from women on what to wear and the other is taking away the first groups oppressive tool that takes away that choice from women. You may not agree that it will be effective, but equating the two is hysterical nonsense.

25-09-2013 01:14PM

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

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What is your alternative?

No its not. One group is trying to take a choice away from women on what to wear and the other is taking away the first groups oppressive tool that takes away that choice from women.

And patronisingly telling them they can't make that choice for themselves and that because these fine men can't consider that anyone would want to do it willingly, it must be banned.
Thereby avoiding all the root causes.

As I said in the past probably on this very same thread, I think education and supports and help groups would be far more beneficial than the usual government interference of "look at us we're doing something and pretending it's helpful even though it accomplishes exactly nothing"

You may not agree that it will be effective, but equating the two is hysterical nonsense.

I personally think that claims that banning a piece of clothing is going to save these women from being raped or acid attacked is hysterical nonsense.

Gbear · 25-09-2013 01:23PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Piliger wrote: »

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.

I was specifically replying to MH's examples of genital mutilation, arranged marriage and murder.
Apologies if that wasn't clear.

Piliger wrote: »

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.

I can't grasp how you've got it this wrong.

What should be enshrined in law and what a person is coerced into doing by a person or society at large are completely separate.

Women (and indeed, everyone) should always be free to wear whatever they like on their own property or public property. If someone is preventing that (a muslim father forcing his daughter to wear the burka, for example) then it has to be dealt with through the mechanisms that are already in place to stop people being coerced into doing things.

Piliger wrote: »

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.

The burka is just an item of clothing. No amount of magical thinking will change that fact.
There is no intrinsic coercion in wearing a burka. A non-muslim could wear one and not spontaneously combust.

People are coerced into doing all manner of things and you can't assert that every single woman who wears a burka is coerced into doing so.

So what is being asserted is that there's a particular arbitrary % of people who are coerced into doing something that, once reached, can be used to justify banning said activity.
It's completely illogical. There's no more reason to ban burkas because 99% of people are forced to wear them by their parents than there is to ban gimp suits because 0.01% of people who wear gimp suits are forced to do so.

Piliger wrote: »

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 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.

I really think you need to read that again and point to where I denied that coercion exists in the Islamic world.

Piliger wrote: »

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.

Thanks for making my point for me. What you're arguing with the banning of the burka is equivalent to bringing in a blanket ban on balaclavas in the scenario above. Which, of course, is absolute bollocks.

Piliger wrote: »

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

It's abundantly clear that you missed the point completely and didn't understand my argument.

Mark Hamill · 25-09-2013 01:33PM

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

bluewolf wrote: »

And patronisingly telling them they can't make that choice for themselves and that because these fine men can't consider that anyone would want to do it willingly, it must be banned.
Thereby avoiding all the root causes.

You're calling me sexist now? Was I a patronising man for telling my sister she should leave the man who beat her? Because I can't consider why anyone who want to live with an abusive husband?

bluewolf wrote: »

As I said in the past probably on this very same thread, I think education and supports and help groups would be far more beneficial than the usual government interference of "look at us we're doing something and pretending it's helpful even though it accomplishes exactly nothing"

They already exist and haven't changed anything (pretty sure I said that as well in the past, in this very thread). A woman indoctrinated into believing she should wear the burka isn't going to want to engage in education or support, and a woman coerced is not going to get the chance to. Any other ideas that might actually move things along?

bluewolf wrote: »

I personally think that claims that banning a piece of clothing is going to save these women from being raped or acid attacked is hysterical nonsense.

But that is what the burka does! Except, it bans all clothes outside of the burka, under threat of rape, physical punishment and spiritual punishment. But thats ok with you, right? Because that is how it is and god help anyone who ever tries to tell a group of women that they are wrong, right?

Delirium · 25-09-2013 01:44PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They already exist and haven't changed anything (pretty sure I said that as well in the past, in this very thread). A woman indoctrinated into believing she should wear the burka isn't going to want to engage in education or support, and a woman coerced is not going to get the chance to. Any other ideas that might actually move things along?

But making criminals of those women isn't the right way to go. The women are victims of indoctrination/coercion and the state will punish them for acting in a manner in keeping with the indoctrination/coercion? It doesn't make any sense.

The women could still be forced to wear clothes but just lacking a veil. Not illegal but still the same net effect for the women. The state is targetting the wrong people.

Mark Hamill · 25-09-2013 02:06PM

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

koth wrote: »

But making criminals of those women isn't the right way to go. The women are victims of indoctrination/coercion and the state will punish them for acting in a manner in keeping with the indoctrination/coercion? It doesn't make any sense.

The women could still be forced to wear clothes but just lacking a veil. Not illegal but still the same net effect for the women. The state is targetting the wrong people.

So how do we target the right people?

Piliger · 25-09-2013 02:09PM

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

Gbear wrote: »

The burka is just an item of clothing. No amount of magical thinking will change that fact.

Demonstrating exactly why you fail to grasp the core issue here. You are clearly in complete denial.

Delirium · 25-09-2013 02:13PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So how do we target the right people?

I would think in much the same way you target people who beat their boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse.

Let the women know they don't have to put up with coercion/intimidation and give them protection should they require it.

25-09-2013 02:16PM

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

You might as well ban relationships just because some of them are bad.

Nobody called you sexist, just patronising for saying no woman out there could freely make a decision you disagree with and so it must be a man making it for her.
It's a side issue anyway, I'm against this for other principles

Turtwig · 25-09-2013 02:29PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You're calling me sexist now? Was I a patronising man for telling my sister she should leave the man who beat her? Because I can't consider why anyone who want to live with an abusive husband?

I don't believe you were being called sexist. How would you react if we enforced a law banning your sister from ever dating people because she could get abused? Banning the burka is a very similar principle. Laws don't change attitudes, people will break them anyway. So you're just criminalising a potential victim over a situation which she likely has no control over. It's almost as bizarre as anti-choice thinking: Ban abortions and the problem goes away. No it doesn't it just get's hidden better from the public view.

Cabaal · 25-09-2013 02:35PM

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

Funny the way that so many countrys that have high burka use also discriminate against women, Russia is on the list also but in fairness....Russia is just insane.

smacl · 25-09-2013 02:39PM

I'm religious and support the ban

koth wrote: »

I would think in much the same way you target people who beat their boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse.

Let the women know they don't have to put up with coercion/intimidation and give them protection should they require it.

Probably worth re-visiting why the ban was voted for in the first instance. From the article in the opening post;

The law would ban any clothing that obscures the identity of the wearer in places like parks and on the street. No-one voted against it.

The ban doesn't seem to be in place to protect women from abuse, it seems to be more about the right to anonymity versus public security. The principal issue I have with it is that it comes across as anti-Islamic, as it is referred to as a burka ban rather than a mask/veil ban. I'd also guess for every burka wearer in a public place at any given time in Belgium, there are a dozens of lads in motorbike helmets. From the same article;

Only around 30 women wear this kind of veil in Belgium, out of a Muslim population of around half a million.

They really are a ridiculously small minority in this instance.

In terms of adding a degree of protection for potential abuse suffers, of course it does nothing, but that's probably not an issue it is intended to address. To me it looks like a shot across the bows from a right wing Belgian government letting the indigenous Muslim population know their place, which is always a good vote getter in an increasingly islamophobic northern Europe.

Penn · 25-09-2013 02:41PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Gbear wrote: »

The burka is just an item of clothing. No amount of magical thinking will change that fact.
There is no intrinsic coercion in wearing a burka. A non-muslim could wear one and not spontaneously combust.

People are coerced into doing all manner of things and you can't assert that every single woman who wears a burka is coerced into doing so.

The issue is that the choice being made isn't between wearing the burka or not wearing the burka, it's about adhering to your religious beliefs or not. Essentially no non-Muslim women wear a burka. So why do Muslim women wear it and non-Muslim women don't, if it is only about personal choice? Because it's part of their religion.

A religion, which was invented by men. The rules of which, decided by men. And because it's part of the religion, it's not a simple choice on whether or not to wear a burka.

They may not be coerced into wearing it by someone telling them to wear it, but that doesn't mean that they aren't brought up believing that they should wear, and that it's good to wear it. When it's part of your upbringing and your society in general, you may believe it to be your choice to wear it or not even though you've been conditioned to choose only one option.

Even after revealing I was an atheist, my family still expected me to go to Mass. Why? Because it's part of our society and culture. They believe it's a choice whether or not you can go to Mass, but that you should still go to Mass regardless of your own personal belief. That even though I don't believe in God, I should go to Mass.

Gbear · 25-09-2013 03:17PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Penn wrote: »

The issue is that the choice being made isn't between wearing the burka or not wearing the burka, it's about adhering to your religious beliefs or not. Essentially no non-Muslim women wear a burka. So why do Muslim women wear it and non-Muslim women don't, if it is only about personal choice? Because it's part of their religion.

A religion, which was invented by men. The rules of which, decided by men. And because it's part of the religion, it's not a simple choice on whether or not to wear a burka.

They may not be coerced into wearing it by someone telling them to wear it, but that doesn't mean that they aren't brought up believing that they should wear, and that it's good to wear it. When it's part of your upbringing and your society in general, you may believe it to be your choice to wear it or not even though you've been conditioned to choose only one option.

Even after revealing I was an atheist, my family still expected me to go to Mass. Why? Because it's part of our society and culture. They believe it's a choice whether or not you can go to Mass, but that you should still go to Mass regardless of your own personal belief. That even though I don't believe in God, I should go to Mass.

Religion makes all sorts of demands on it's adherents. There's real coercion in the form of families and communities and there's imaginary coercion in the form of eternal damnation. Ultimately in a free society it is someone's choice if they want to handicap themselves with a stupid garment or not being allowed to eat pork.

You can't help everyone. Ultimately all the government should provide is robust laws protecting people who do want to escape from the stupid rules being enforced on them. While it mightn't be ideal that each and every person who wants to escape the burka cannot do so or is brainwashed into thinking they should be ashamed of their bodies, the same can be said about women who want to escape from abusive relationships but cannot or don't want to.
It's unfortunate but that's the price of having a free society.

I think that the willingness to cast aside an important aspect of personal freedom stems from a childish and emotion-driven line of argument. There's simply no logically consistent way to ban something like the burka and also at the same time have the freedom to wear what you want.
The government should not have the power to regulate clothing for any reason.

clairefontaine · 25-09-2013 03:34PM

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

If they are in the west, they're is no coercion. No law can make them.

I was looking for directions, a little lost so I slowed down and rolled down my window to ask directions from this woman wearing a burkha and pushing a buggy. She had no idea about what I was talking about or pretended to to. As I drove off I reminded her he didn't have to wear that, it's a free country.

But being a Black American convert, no doubt her choice to wear one was her choice to wear one, so lets not assume universal coercion.

robindch · 25-09-2013 04:00PM

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

Gbear wrote: »

Ultimately in a free society it is someone's choice if they want to handicap themselves with a stupid garment or not being allowed to eat pork.

Not wishing to belabour the point, but the anti-burka brigade generally believe exactly the same thing, but disagree in this specific instance since they don't believe that the choice to wear the thing is, in any genuine sense, a free choice.

Another way to look at it is to ask oneself the question:

Is the choice to wear the burka as free as the choice not to wear it? ie, is the choice equal?

Anti-burka people, supported by frankly, quite a lot of evidence, don't believe that the choice is equal.

Brown Bomber · 25-09-2013 04:29PM

Penn wrote: »

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.

Jewish Burka wearers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi_burqa_sect

smacl · 25-09-2013 04:35PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Jewish Burka wearers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi_burqa_sect

Christian Burkas

Burka ban

Comments