Burka ban

Brown Bomber · 25-09-2013 04:39PM

robindch wrote: »

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.Yes, many times. .

Why do you assume coercion? Why do you refer to a woman's husband as her "guardian"? If you and your wife were out together and someone asked her a question would she answer dishonestly to avoid your wrath?

robindch wrote: »

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.

So we are back to this nonsense again? Muslim men can't help but sexually assualt people because they are Muslim.

Odd that there is so much sexual assaults against women here in secular Sweden. You wan't to hear about encouraging immorality in liberal Sweden? Last week some old geezer found out he had no charges to answer even though he had been arrested for masturbating at a public beach with lots of kids around.

Penn · 25-09-2013 04:42PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

Swapping one religion for another doesn't change the point. They also wear it for religious reasons, not by their own personal choice. Fair enough, I said non-Muslim because it's predominantly known as a garment worn by Muslim women. However, the point still stands. It's worn for religious reasons, not by choice.

Without religion being a factor and solely in a "what do I want to wear" sense, the number of women who would choose to wear a burka would be so small as to be negligible, as evident by the fact that female members of religions which don't advocate wearing it, don't wear it.

A choice based in religion is not always a free choice. If you give someone a black t-shirt and a red t-shirt and gave them a choice of which to wear, that's a choice. However, if that person has been conditioned to believe that they'll go to Hell for wearing any black clothing, then it's not a true choice.

Penn · 25-09-2013 04:49PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Last week some old geezer found out he had no charges to answer even though he had been arrested for masturbating at a public beach with lots of kids around.

Was he looking at the kids while doing it? Was he thinking of the kids while doing it? Was he doing it because there were kids there?

No. Your over-dramatised and condensed account of what happened is flawed at best.

A court in Sweden has ruled that a man who openly masturbated on a beach in Stockholm did not commit an offence because he was not “pleasuring himself towards a specific person”.

The 65-year-old man had been charged with sexual assault after he was seen on 6 June removing his shorts and masturbating near the water’s edge.

The district court of Södertörn issued a judgement in which it said that it “may be proven that the man exposed himself and masturbated on this occasion”, according to the Swedish English-language news website The Local.

Yet the court acquitted the man, and said the man had not committed an offence because he did not direct his activities towards a specific person.

And it appears that Sweden’s prosecution service will accept the ruling, with public prosecutor Olof Vrethammar telling the Mitti newspaper that he wasn't planning to appeal.

“For this to be a criminal offence it's required that the sexual molestation was directed towards one or more people. I think the court's judgement is reasonable,” he said.

When asked if it was now acceptable to masturbate in public if you don't direct it towards a specific individual the prosecutor said it was “okay”.

“The district court has made a judgement on this case. With that we can conclude that it is okay to masturbate on the beach.”

Mr Verthammar added that acts of masturbation in public may still be regarded as “disorderly conduct”.

Brown Bomber · 25-09-2013 04:50PM

Penn wrote: »

Swapping one religion for another doesn't change the point. They also wear it for religious reasons, not by their own personal choice. Fair enough, I said non-Muslim because it's predominantly known as a garment worn by Muslim women. However, the point still stands. It's worn for religious reasons, not by choice.

Without religion being a factor and solely in a "what do I want to wear" sense, the number of women who would choose to wear a burka would be so small as to be negligible, as evident by the fact that female members of religions which don't advocate wearing it, don't wear it.

A choice based in religion is not always a free choice. If you give someone a black t-shirt and a red t-shirt and gave them a choice of which to wear, that's a choice. However, if that person has been conditioned to believe that they'll go to Hell for wearing any black clothing, then it's not a true choice.

Why do you assume any conditioning? People in Ireland have the option to opt-in and alternatively opt-out of any religion at any time in Ireland.

You are an atheist who was raised Catholic right? Is there something that you possess that a Muslim lady does not to break through this alleged conditioninj?

A Muslim lady in Ireland can similarly be raised Muslim and become atheist, Christian, SCientologist or whatever else she wishes for herself right?

By the same token she can choose to become an observant Muslim based on her understanding of her religion and choose to wear (or not wear) a burqa right?

At what point does your opinion on which garments this lady wears on her own body supercede hers?

Brown Bomber · 25-09-2013 04:52PM

Penn wrote: »

Was he looking at the kids while doing it? Was he thinking of the kids while doing it? Was he doing it because there were kids there?

No. Your over-dramatised and condensed account of what happened is flawed at best.

??? huh?

That article matches perfectly with my statements. Old man cracking one off in public in the presence of children gets off scott free.

Penn · 25-09-2013 05:17PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why do you assume any conditioning? People in Ireland have the option to opt-in and alternatively opt-out of any religion at any time in Ireland.

You are an atheist who was raised Catholic right? Is there something that you possess that a Muslim lady does not to break through this alleged conditioninj?

A Muslim lady in Ireland can similarly be raised Muslim and become atheist, Christian, SCientologist or whatever else she wishes for herself right?

By the same token she can choose to become an observant Muslim based on her understanding of her religion and choose to wear (or not wear) a burqa right?

At what point does your opinion on which garments this lady wears on her own body supercede hers?

When she becomes an atheist and still decides to wear a burka, then you may have a point. But as I said, without religion being a factor, the number of women who choose to wear a burka is essentially zero. Women can choose to wear whatever they want. My point is, the choice to wear a burka is typically related to their religion, and growing up culturally and religiously to believe that they're supposed to wear a burka. Is that a free choice? Are you choosing to wear a burka, or choosing to follow your religion and societal norms?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

??? huh?

That article matches perfectly with my statements. Old man cracking one off in public in the presence of children gets off scott free.

Because there's no provable correlation between the fact that he was masturbating and the fact that there were children there. Your condensed version of events made it sound like he did so intentionally in front of children. This was not the case.

clairefontaine · 25-09-2013 05:25PM

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

Penn wrote: »

When she becomes an atheist and still decides to wear a burka, then you may have a point. But as I said, without religion being a factor, the number of women who choose to wear a burka is essentially zero. Women can choose to wear whatever they want. My point is, the choice to wear a burka is typically related to their religion, and growing up culturally and religiously to believe that they're supposed to wear a burka. Is that a free choice? Are you choosing to wear a burka, or choosing to follow your religion and societal norms?

Because there's no provable correlation between the fact that he was masturbating and the fact that there were children there. Your condensed version of events made it sound like he did so intentionally in front of children. This was not the case.

Yes it absolutely is a choice, but one that doesn't come in an easy package. If she's in a western country, it is a choice. Choice comes with a price sometimes.

I get what you are saying absolutely because I am currently in this position with 1st holy communion for my little one. He has no religion in school, I don't follow any religion, I don't care if there is a god or there isn't, and yet I appreciate the value of community and there are many values in the Judeo Christian ethos that I like. And many that I dont. Now I'm getting some family pressure, so it doesn't FEEL like a choice, because of that pressure, but the bottom line is it is a choice, and its my responsibility for whatever choice I make for my six year old. So I can't blame the school or my family. I can't really put it on any one but me for whatever decision I choose to make about it. Yea i may face criticism, possibly scorn from them. And I've already complained to the priest about dressing up girls as little brides, but other than complaining there's little I can do about that, so my choice is also made complex by this personal objection.

Brown Bomber · 25-09-2013 05:30PM

Penn wrote: »

When she becomes an atheist and still decides to wear a burka, then you may have a point. But as I said, without religion being a factor, the number of women who choose to wear a burka is essentially zero. Women can choose to wear whatever they want. My point is, the choice to wear a burka is typically related to their religion, and growing up culturally and religiously to believe that they're supposed to wear a burka. Is that a free choice? Are you choosing to wear a burka, or choosing to follow your religion and societal norms?

Choosing to wear a burka. By your logic if I am an Arsenal supporter because all my family are Arsenal supporters and I choose to wear an Arsenal jersey walking to the shop then I haven't made any "choice" as to what I am wearing, it is part of my indoctrination.

At least that is as ridiculous as it sounds to me. I don't view people with religious belief as inferior to me. They are every inch my equal as people. It is becoming increasingly apparent that there is a sub-section of atheists who do.

Penn wrote: »

Because there's no provable correlation between the fact that he was masturbating and the fact that there were children there. Your condensed version of events made it sound like he did so intentionally in front of children. This was not the case.

So this dirty old creep was masturbating accidentally in public?

Penn · 25-09-2013 06:21PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Choosing to wear a burka. By your logic if I am an Arsenal supporter because all my family are Arsenal supporters and I choose to wear an Arsenal jersey walking to the shop then I haven't made any "choice" as to what I am wearing, it is part of my indoctrination.

At least that is as ridiculous as it sounds to me. I don't view people with religious belief as inferior to me. They are every inch my equal as people. It is becoming increasingly apparent that there is a sub-section of atheists who do.

So this dirty old creep was masturbating accidentally in public?

I don't view religious people as inferior. I blame the religion, not the religious, just as I blame many different religions for many different things. But please clarify if you were referring to me in that statement.

Regardless of which, let me boil my argument down to its simplest form:

Almost all women who wear burkas/niqabs/hijabs are members of a religion or society (with rules/laws largely based on religion) which advocates doing so.

Almost all women who don't wear burkas/niqabs/hijabs are not members of a religion or society which advocates doing so.

While I believe there are likely a good number of Muslim women who don't wear a burka/niqab/hijab, the reverse is not true. The number of women who choose to wear a burka/niqab/hijab having not been raised in a religion or society which advocates doing so are so small as to be negligible.

Are you seriously suggesting that religion is not a factor in their choice? Even in the interview you posted earlier, religion was one of the reasons the woman said she chose to wear a burka.

And your Arsenal analogy is irrelevant as religion and sport are clearly not equatable.

Mark Hamill · 25-09-2013 08:59PM

I'm non-religious and do not 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.

But what about the women who don't want help? You may say they are adults and can make their own decisions, but their adult choice has been undermined by the indoctrination that most of them received as children. And then, how do we help the children in these situations? Is it right that children are raised to believe that women should have to wear the burka out of fear of men raping them or out of fear of punishment, heavenly or otherwise.

Mark Hamill · 25-09-2013 09:06PM

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

bluewolf wrote: »

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

Since I'm not saying some burkas are bad (to be clear, I am saying they are all bad, because they always come with the religious propaganda) your analogy here doesn't apply.

If I had ever encountered a reason for the burka that wasn't empty headed nonsense hiding misogynistic control, I would not agree with banning it. I don't agree with banning any religious garb that doesn't cover the face (head scarfs etc.) as these actually approach an idea of modesty without requiring the wearer to be completely anonymous.

bluewolf wrote: »

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.

So that's you not calling me sexist? For someone not calling me sexist, you seem to have a problem not emphasising the sexes involved:
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.

25-09-2013 09:08PM

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

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So that's you not calling me sexist? For someone not calling me sexist, you seem to have a problem not emphasising the sexes involved:
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.

It was a general comment on guys sitting around deciding what's best for women in this particular instance. Which I found irritating as it's guys supposedly oppressing women with the burka, and mostly guys saying they must be brainwashed. I'm not calling you sexist

It's still a problem if women do the same

The problem is the "patronising" bit. Just because I mentioned men doesn't make it a sexism issue!
Remember that the original comment was "one group vs the other group", not a personal commentary

Mark Hamill · 25-09-2013 09:12PM

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

Jernal wrote: »

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.

Its not, as the burka isn't only damaging some of the time, or to only some of its wearers.
You can date people, usually avoiding potential abuse.
All wearers of the burka have their identity removed to satisfy some religious leaders desire for control and oppression, all of them.

Jernal wrote: »

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.

But if these people are victims, then they can point out that they are being forced to by someone else, and that person will be criminalised.

So what is the alternative?

Delirium · 25-09-2013 09:23PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But what about the women who don't want help? You may say they are adults and can make their own decisions, but their adult choice has been undermined by the indoctrination that most of them received as children.

I'm not a social worker so I can't give any of the finer details but it would be the same as a woman who is being beaten and won't report her OH. There is only so far the system can go. The state can't just kick in doors and forcibly remove women from the situation. It's just replacing one controlling relationship with another.

And then, how do we help the children in these situations? Is it right that children are raised to believe that women should have to wear the burka out of fear of men raping them or out of fear of punishment, heavenly or otherwise.

No, of course it's not okay. But banning the burka isn't going to combat that. What it does is creates a scenario for those kids where the state is removing the only protection (in the kids minds) women have from punishment and/or rape.

Kids need to made aware that men aren't rapists that can only be repelled by a burka. What sort of message does that give the boys? That they're absolved of personal responsibility because a woman isn't wearing a burka? Feck that. Teach them to be men and show respect to women.

Mark Hamill · 25-09-2013 09:30PM

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

bluewolf wrote: »

Just because I mentioned men doesn't make it a sexism issue!

But it does, otherwise why mention the sexes involved in the way you did? Why say you are annoyed by patronising men saying these women are oppressed by other men?

Remember that the original comment was "one group vs the other group", not a personal commentary

The original comment was:
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.
And I'm a member of one group and you said this in answer to one of my posts.

25-09-2013 09:33PM

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

Mark... I wasn't calling you a sexist. At all. You're really picking it up wrong and I don't know how else to say it

Turtwig · 25-09-2013 11:13PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

All wearers of the burka have their identity removed to satisfy some religious leaders desire for control and oppression, all of them.

Anyone who wears a uniform generally has their identity removed to some extent. Deindividuation is commonplace in groups. We need to be very careful when we're attributing ideas such as freedom of choice and individualism. Or suggesting they don't exist. Women who are Catholic choose of their own free will to not have sex as a form of recreation. Is it really that implausible to suggest some women wearing the burka are actually doing it of their own volition?

Piliger · 25-09-2013 11:36PM

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

Mark Hamill wrote: »

All wearers of the burka have their identity removed to satisfy some religious leaders desire for control and oppression, all of them.

That is what it is all about and those here who claim not to see this, are either wilfully doing so or just winding people up.

robindch · 25-09-2013 11:54PM

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

Jernal wrote: »

Is it really that implausible to suggest some women wearing the burka are actually doing it of their own volition?

No doubt some are and one can argue about whether that's a fully unencumbered decision, or whether it's Stockholm Syndrome. I'm inclined to believe that the majority are the latter, though I'm sure there probably are a few smart, unencumbered women who have managed to rationalize this belief to themselves in the absence of any coercion.

But in either case, I don't believe there's any doubt that once the requirement to wear a "modest clothes" including the headscarf, the chador or burka takes root within a society, and especially at state level -- I'm thinking places like Chechna which is currently heading in that direction at speed -- violence massively increases against women.

The argument on this thread from the anti-ban side is that banning it won't help women. That's perhaps the case for a small number who may be confined at home -- I can't find reliable figures about what's happened in France, but the numbers appear to be very small indeed (and googling suggests that many of these may well be political/religious obsessives). However, the inconvenience that these unfortunate individuals suffer must be weighed against the far greater violence that is almost certain to take place against women, if the state doesn't step in and guarantee the rights of the far greater number of women who appear to have no interest in having their clothing restricted to what's effectively a black refuse sack.

Here's what appears to be a fairly reliable account of what's happened in various countries which have failed to step in and stand up to religious bullies:

http://www.meforum.org/2777/ban-the-burqa

MEForum wrote:

The fact is that Muslim women are increasingly not given a free choice about wearing the veil, and those who resist are beaten, threatened with death, arrested, flogged, jailed, or murdered for honor by their own families, by vigilante groups, or by the state. Being fully covered does not save a Muslim woman from being harassed, stalked, raped, and battered in public places, or raped or beaten at home by her husband. Nor does it stop her husband from taking multiple wives and girlfriends, frequenting brothels, divorcing her against her will, and legally seizing custody of their children. A fully covered female child, as young as ten, may still be forced into an arranged marriage, perhaps to a man old enough to be her grandfather, and is not allowed to leave him, not even if he beats her every day.

Moreover, after decades of attempted modernization in Muslim countries, the battle to impose the veil was launched again by resurgent Islamists. The establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran sent shock waves throughout the region and set in motion a string of violent eruptions. These included the 1979-80 riots in the Shiite towns of the oil-rich Saudi province of Hasa, the Muslim Brotherhood's attempt to topple the secularist Syrian Baath regime in the early 1980s, the Algerian civil war of the 1990s, the ascendance of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, and the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan. All these developments placed substantial areas under Islamist control and influence with dire consequences for women. As one Egyptian man lamented, "My grandmother would not recognize the streets of Cairo and Port Said. The women are covered from head to toe; the mosques blare hatred all day long." And this in a country where the authorities go to great lengths to fight Islamist influences.

The Taliban, for example, flogged women on the street if their burqas showed too much ankle while Islamist vigilantes poured acid on the faces of Afghan and Pakistani schoolgirls who were not sufficiency covered. As an Afghan woman noted, "For nearly two decades, we wore no chadors and dressed in modern ways. As the war against the Soviet occupation intensified, women were again forced to wear chadors. Now, even under an American occupation, they are again fully covered."

In Algeria, a leading Islamist group proclaimed that all unveiled women are military targets and, in 1994, gunned down a 17-year-old unveiled girl. In 2010 in Chechnya, roving vigilante bands of men harassed and threatened women for not wearing headscarves. They punched women and taunted them with automatic rifles and paintballs. The vigilante groups have the backing of Chechnyan president Ramzan Kadyrov's government, which also encourages polygamy.

robindch · 26-09-2013 12:01AM

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

Piliger wrote: »

That is what it is all about and those here who claim not to see this, are either wilfully doing so or just winding people up.

The main point(s) of disagreement -- as far as I see it -- is that the anti-ban side believes that (a) from the practical point of view, the ban will increase violence against women because they'll now be forced to stay at home and (b) from the rights-based point of view, a ban on an item of clothing is as coercive as a requirement to wear an item of clothing. Some anti-ban individuals appear to believe (c) that the decision to wear a burka is "free" and unencumbered.

As above, I don't believe that (a) is true for any significant number of individuals in France or Belgium where the number of burka-wearers is/was tiny; and their inconvenience must be weighed against the likelihood that many more people in the future will be forced to wear the burka against their will if it's not stopped when the numbers are small. For (b), I don't believe that a requirement not to wear a single item of clothing is equivalent to a requirement to wear a single item of clothing, so the rights-based argument is largely (though not completely) moot. I believe that (c) is completely, almost trivially false.

Two Tone from Limehouse · 26-09-2013 12:10AM

I'm religious and do not support the ban

Piliger wrote: »

That is what it is all about and those here who claim not to see this, are either wilfully doing so or just winding people up.

I'm not really bothered whether banning it helps them or not. It should be banned because to me, as a non Muslim living in a western society the Burkha is damn right offensive.

Mark Hamill · 26-09-2013 12:53AM

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

Jernal wrote: »

Anyone who wears a uniform generally has their identity removed to some extent.

To some extent, but their faces are still visible and many uniforms come with name badges of some sort.

Jernal wrote: »

Is it really that implausible to suggest some women wearing the burka are actually doing it of their own volition?

Yes. Otherwise why is it that the only women who wear it are from very specific and very controlling subsets of religious groups?

smacl · 26-09-2013 07:12AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Two Tone from Limehouse wrote: »

I'm not really bothered whether banning it helps them or not. It should be banned because to me, as a non Muslim living in a western society the Burkha is damn right offensive.

And I think that this is the driving force behind the Belgian ban. I suspect it has more to do with the pandering of a right wing government to their xenophobic electorate than with looking after the rights and avoiding potential abuse for the women involved.

I tend to go with the statement taken by Amnesty International in this regard, and as such am against the ban. The sight of women in Burkas can make us feel uncomfortable, which was certainly true of myself prior to working for a spell in the middle East. The question then becomes who's problem is that?

Do people who support the ban really believe that this isn't a whole mess of xenophobia and islamophobia dressed up as a security and oppression of women issue? If the former is true, and western societies still want to ban the burka, so be it. But to my mind, dressing a form of hatred up as social protection stinks of self-delusion and moral cowardice.

MrPudding · 26-09-2013 07:42AM

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

smacl wrote: »

Do people who support the ban really believe that this isn't a whole mess of xenophobia and islamophobia dressed up as a security and oppression of women issue? If the former is true, and western societies still want to ban the burka, so be it. But to my mind, dressing a form of hatred up as social protection stinks of self-delusion and moral cowardice.

What is it about islam that means any criticism of it, it practices or any of its proponants has to be based on hatred or islamophobia?

MrP

smacl · 26-09-2013 08:07AM

I'm religious and support the ban

MrPudding wrote: »

What is it about islam that means any criticism of it, it practices or any of its proponants has to be based on hatred or islamophobia?

MrP

Probably because the rationale behind islamophobia is arguably more reasonable than for most other religions. Things like declaring jihads on cartoonists, and seeing people tearing each other to bits in various middle eastern conflicts does tend to cause a fair amount of alarm. Are you suggesting that there isn't an anti-islamic sentiment involved in this ban, and that the ban, as stated by the Belgian government, is solely about security concerns? Because the sum total of thirty or so Burqa wearing women in Belgium on the face of it don't appear to be the size of national threat to security that warrants this type of action.

Gordon · 26-09-2013 08:18AM

robindch wrote: »

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.

When I lived in the Middle East for many years, on planes leaving the country to go to a western country, there'd usually be a number of women in burkas on the plane. It was commonplace for women to go to the toilet and return wearing western clothes, having ditched their burka. Whether or not these women were with their husbands or not, though, I'm not sure as it was a while ago.

inocybe · 26-09-2013 08:26AM

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

Gordon wrote: »

When I lived in the Middle East for many years, on planes leaving the country to go to a western country, there'd usually be a number of women in burkas on the plane. It was commonplace for women to go to the toilet and return wearing western clothes, having ditched their burka. Whether or not these women were with their husbands or not, though, I'm not sure as it was a while ago.

I have seen them walk straight through the queue for security in airports in the Middle East, they don't stand in line with foreigners. Incidentally I also knew of men who were stopped on the streets by police for not wearing the national dress.

smacl · 26-09-2013 08:39AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Gordon wrote: »

When I lived in the Middle East for many years, on planes leaving the country to go to a western country, there'd usually be a number of women in burkas on the plane. It was commonplace for women to go to the toilet and return wearing western clothes, having ditched their burka. Whether or not these women were with their husbands or not, though, I'm not sure as it was a while ago.

Similar experience, and the men would likewise get rid of traditional arab attire and wear western clothing at the first opportunity, though they'd have done this before getting on the plane. Some of those that I knew were not above having a pint when they hit UK soil either, particularly those who'd had a UK college education.

Delirium · 26-09-2013 08:47AM

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

No doubt some are and one can argue about whether that's a fully unencumbered decision, or whether it's Stockholm Syndrome. I'm inclined to believe that the majority are the latter, though I'm sure there probably are a few smart, unencumbered women who have managed to rationalize this belief to themselves in the absence of any coercion.

But in either case, I don't believe there's any doubt that once the requirement to wear a "modest clothes" including the headscarf, the chador or burka takes root within a society, and especially at state level -- I'm thinking places like Chechna which is currently heading in that direction at speed -- violence massively increases against women.

The argument on this thread from the anti-ban side is that banning it won't help women. That's perhaps the case for a small number who may be confined at home -- I can't find reliable figures about what's happened in France, but the numbers appear to be very small indeed (and googling suggests that many of these may well be political/religious obsessives). However, the inconvenience that these unfortunate individuals suffer must be weighed against the far greater violence that is almost certain to take place against women, if the state doesn't step in and guarantee the rights of the far greater number of women who appear to have no interest in having their clothing restricted to what's effectively a black refuse sack.

Here's what appears to be a fairly reliable account of what's happened in various countries which have failed to step in and stand up to religious bullies:

http://www.meforum.org/2777/ban-the-burqa

But the problem is the religious bullies. Ban the burka and they'll just find another way to bully the women. It's saying nothing to the women that the bullying is unacceptable and they don't need to put up with it.

A mental shift needs to be sparked in the bullied women to let them know they can get help.

It's the bullies that need to be tackled not an item they use for bullying.

robindch · 26-09-2013 10:29AM

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

MrPudding wrote: »

What is it about islam that means any criticism of it, it practices or any of its proponants has to be based on hatred or islamophobia?

The understanding generally appears to be that by accusing somebody with an opposing viewpoint of being motivated by hatred (or in this case, "islamophobia" too, whatever exactly that is), then the accuser is absolved of having to address any of the actual points raised.

Burka ban

Comments