Burka ban

Dublin Red Devil · 10-12-2013 02:11AM

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

Muslim women should just wear a Hijab. What is the point of intentionally pushing buttons of western society. It's completely unnecessary to walk around public places dressed like Japanese Ninja.

Absolam · 10-12-2013 02:36AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Muslim women should just dress as they please... like non Muslim women, who can walk around public places dressed like a Japanese Ninja if the want. Minus the array of offensive weaponry, of course.

smacl · 10-12-2013 08:12AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

You seem to offering 'an unacceptable action' as an absolute; however what is and isn't acceptable is far from absolute. In this particular instance wearing a burka is perfectly acceptable to some people, even overtly desirable to some. How often they do it, or how many of them do it, doesn't change the fact that it is perfectly acceptable to them.

As could be said for public nudity. Some people wouldn't be offended by it, many would. As such it is prohibited under most day to day circumstances. What is and is not acceptable in public is decided by society as whole, where such decisions impinge to some extent on individuals freedoms of expression from time to time.

MrPudding · 10-12-2013 09:34AM

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

Absolam wrote: »

And yes, that poll shows huge support, but in my optimistic idealism I would hope that if it went to a vote the French people might show more enthusiasm for their founding principles of liberty and equality.

I think, perhaps, it is exactly becuase of the founding principle of liberty they are so against the burqa.

Absolam wrote: »

Muslim women should just dress as they please... like non Muslim women, who can walk around public places dressed like a Japanese Ninja if the want. Minus the array of offensive weaponry, of course.

Umm, I think you will find the the legislation that bans the burqa in public would also preclude a non-muslim woman walking around in a Japanese Ninja suit, armed or otherwise.

MrP

Absolam · 10-12-2013 09:41AM

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

As could be said for public nudity. Some people wouldn't be offended by it, many would. As such it is prohibited under most day to day circumstances. What is and is not acceptable in public is decided by society as whole, where such decisions impinge to some extent on individuals freedoms of expression from time to time.

My point exactly... nudity is considered immodest and generally prohibited in most circumstances. Yet to be even more modest and thoroughly cover oneself is subject to further prohibition? Baffling! It's like a tyranny of mediocre opinion.

Anyway, I wonder, if a woman were to walk naked from one end of the Avenue Des Champs Élysées to the other, then from that end back to the first wearing a burka, how many people would she offend on each trip? Enough to actually make it worth legislating for?

The first trip carries a fine of 46 euro, but strangely the second trip wearing too much clothing carries a fine of 150 euro. So it seems the public must be three times more offended by over-modesty than under-modesty?

MrPudding wrote: »

I think, perhaps, it is exactly becuase of the founding principle of liberty they are so against the burqa.

Certainly, presenting it as a protection of women from being forced to wear the burka gives it the appearance of an appeal to liberty. But then since the ban came in, no one has been fined for forcing a woman to wear a burka, yet plenty of women have been fined for wearing one, which rather puts the lie to the idea?

MrPudding wrote: »

Umm, I think you will find the the legislation that bans the burqa in public would also preclude a non-muslim woman walking around in a Japanese Ninja suit, armed or otherwise. MrP

True enough. So non Muslim Ninja fetishists are also being deprived of liberty!

MrPudding · 10-12-2013 10:05AM

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

Absolam wrote: »

Certainly, presenting it as a protection of women from being forced to wear the burka gives it the appearance of an appeal to liberty. But then since the ban came in, no one has been fined for forcing a woman to wear a burka, yet plenty of women have been fined for wearing one, which rather puts the lie to the idea?

I would not be so quick to assign any kind of meaning to no men having been fined yet, unless you have some information as to why this has been the case so far. I have had a quick look and I can't find anything. It would be interesting, I think, to understand why no one has been fined with forcing a woman to wear a face covering.

Absolam wrote: »

True enough. So non Muslim Ninja fetishists are also being deprived of liberty!

Indeed, and still I have yet to hear accusations of ninjitsuaphobia.

MrP

old hippy · 10-12-2013 10:11AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Dublin Red Devil wrote: »

Muslim women should just wear a Hijab. What is the point of intentionally pushing buttons of western society. .

Ah, it's simply to cause us stress, is it?

smacl · 10-12-2013 10:32AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

Anyway, I wonder, if a woman were to walk naked from one end of the Avenue Des Champs Élysées to the other, then from that end back to the first wearing a burka, how many people would she offend on each trip? Enough to actually make it worth legislating for?

Apparently so. That's why they've legislated for both cases above.

Absolam · 10-12-2013 10:39AM

I'm religious and support the ban

MrPudding wrote: »

I would not be so quick to assign any kind of meaning to no men having been fined yet, unless you have some information as to why this has been the case so far. I have had a quick look and I can't find anything. It would be interesting, I think, to understand why no one has been fined with forcing a woman to wear a face covering.

My opinion (and I'll admit it's not even an educated one in this case) is that's it's easy to fine women for wearing hijabs; they're out there in the public eye, even doing it on purpose to draw attention to the ban. The legislation is there and can be acted on easily. The intent that (supposedly) framed the legislation, to protect the liberty of women forced to cover their faces, is so much harder to enforce, so no one bothers. The politicians are seen to have done something, and have not been overly taxed by the effort. Job done.

MrPudding wrote: »

Indeed, and still I have yet to hear accusations of ninjitsuaphobia.

It's only a matter of time! Someday soon the people will rise, and their terrible cry will be "Liberté, égalité, ninjanité!", and there'll be no more eating cake... only those little cardboard boxes of ramen from the back of the cupboard. That'll show 'em.

smacl · 10-12-2013 11:25AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

My opinion (and I'll admit it's not even an educated one in this case) is that's it's easy to fine women for wearing hijabs; they're out there in the public eye, even doing it on purpose to draw attention to the ban. The legislation is there and can be acted on easily. The intent that (supposedly) framed the legislation, to protect the liberty of women forced to cover their faces, is so much harder to enforce, so no one bothers. The politicians are seen to have done something, and have not been overly taxed by the effort. Job done.

I agree entirely, but I suspect there's more hiding in the highlighted brackets above than some people are in a hurry to face up to. To consider some context, we're talking about a country who are conservative in their secularism, distrustful of Islam, with growing concerns about the increasing number and background of immigrants, that has had race riots in the recent past. I for one don't believe that the welfare of a minority of Muslim women is the principal concern for most French or Belgian people on either side of the debate.

gaynorvader · 10-12-2013 01:32PM

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

Absolam wrote: »

My point exactly... nudity is considered immodest and generally prohibited in most circumstances. Yet to be even more modest and thoroughly cover oneself is subject to further prohibition? Baffling! It's like a tyranny of mediocre opinion.
{...}

This is a poor point. Just because one extreme is prohibited, does not automatically mean the other extreme should be fine.

MrPudding · 10-12-2013 01:41PM

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

Absolam wrote: »

My opinion (and I'll admit it's not even an educated one in this case) is that's it's easy to fine women for wearing hijabs; they're out there in the public eye, even doing it on purpose to draw attention to the ban. The legislation is there and can be acted on easily. The intent that (supposedly) framed the legislation, to protect the liberty of women forced to cover their faces, is so much harder to enforce, so no one bothers. The politicians are seen to have done something, and have not been overly taxed by the effort. Job done.

It could very well be that simple, but it might not be. I presume you are willing to agree that there are at least some women who are forced to wear the burqa, yes? How would a state prosecute those men? First, obviously, they would need to be told they are forcing someone to wear a burqa. Then, presumably, they would need some kind of evidence, perhaps a statement form the victim, at the very least. How easy do you think it might be to get those things?

Personally, it seems to me to be pretty obvious that few, if any, women who are forced to wear a burqa are going to go to the authorities to shop in the men forcing them to wear them. That said, perhaps in time they will. Perhaps if there are one or two prosecutions more may follow, but I most certainly was not expecting a flood of them.

MrP

Absolam · 10-12-2013 02:25PM

I'm religious and support the ban

gaynorvader wrote: »

This is a poor point. Just because one extreme is prohibited, does not automatically mean the other extreme should be fine.

Or maybe, prohibiting things based on how much it offends someone, despite it doing them no actual harm, is just silly?

MrPudding wrote: »

It could very well be that simple, but it might not be. I presume you are willing to agree that there are at least some women who are forced to wear the burqa, yes? How would a state prosecute those men?
Perhaps if there are one or two prosecutions more may follow, but I most certainly was not expecting a flood of them.

Yes, I'd imagine some women in France may indeed be forced to dress in a way they wouldn't choose for themselves. Some may be forced to wear burkas. The French state enacted legislation banning men from forcing women to wear burkas, it would appear now without any consideration for how that law could be prosecuted. Maybe some thought before passing these laws might have yielded a strategy that didn't stigmatise the women supposedly being protected, and instead might create an environment where women weren't being coerced in either direction?

MrPudding · 10-12-2013 02:51PM

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

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, I'd imagine some women in France may indeed be forced to dress in a way they wouldn't choose for themselves. Some may be forced to wear burkas. The French state enacted legislation banning men from forcing women to wear burkas, it would appear now without any consideration for how that law could be prosecuted. Maybe some thought before passing these laws might have yielded a strategy that didn't stigmatise the women supposedly being protected, and instead might create an environment where women weren't being coerced in either direction?

Genuine question, what would you suggest?

MrP

Absolam · 10-12-2013 10:52PM

I'm religious and support the ban

MrPudding wrote: »

Genuine question, what would you suggest?

I'm not a social engineer but I'd suggest that banning and burning have always been the resort of ideologies that couldn't cope with reality.
My suggestion would simply be education. Educate children so that they know they don't need to attack things they don't understand, and that people who are different aren't lesser because of it. Educate them so that they know they aren't lesser because of their sex, and the state they live in guarantees them freedoms their fathers and husbands can't take away. France as a secular state is perfectly positioned to deliver that education. It may take twenty years to come to fruition, it won't get any politicians elected in the next couple of years, but it just might work.

smacl · 11-12-2013 08:47AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not a social engineer but I'd suggest that banning and burning have always been the resort of ideologies that couldn't cope with reality.

Our incitement to hatred legislation is one such ban, public decency legislation another. In fact if you look at how most societies legislate, it as much about what is banned as anything else.

My suggestion would simply be education. Educate children so that they know they don't need to attack things they don't understand, and that people who are different aren't lesser because of it. Educate them so that they know they aren't lesser because of their sex, and the state they live in guarantees them freedoms their fathers and husbands can't take away. France as a secular state is perfectly positioned to deliver that education. It may take twenty years to come to fruition, it won't get any politicians elected in the next couple of years, but it just might work.

Certainly an approach worth trying, albeit an idealogical one. Burka wearers are still both a source of social tension and stigmatized in the interim, so a more pragmatic interim solution is required for the short term.

It is interesting that these burka bans affect so few people directly ( < 1% of France's, Belgiums or the Netherlands Muslim women wear burqas or naqibs AFAIK). This is why I think the bans are primarily about visibly and publicly taking a stance against the encroachment of more extreme branches of Islam in those societies.

Absolam · 11-12-2013 09:17AM

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Our incitement to hatred legislation is one such ban, public decency legislation another. In fact if you look at how most societies legislate, it as much about what is banned as anything else.

Legislation is by its' very nature prohibitive; laws rarely say 'you must', they generally say 'you must not', that's kind of their purpose. That's not quite the same thing as banning; the prohibition of incitement to hatred legislation for instance doesn't ban freedom of speech, it prohibits speech intended to cause hatred. I'd freely support legislation that prohibited wearing a burka with the intent to cause hatred. I would not support legislation prohibiting speech that was offensive (such as our appalling blasphemy law).
I agree, the legislation of societies is often as much about what is banned as anything else; I suspect you can easily identify tolerant, inclusive societies by how little they ban compared to more oppressive societies.

smacl wrote: »

It is interesting that these burka bans affect so few people directly ( < 1% of France's, Belgiums or the Netherlands Muslim women wear burqas or naqibs AFAIK). This is why I think the bans are primarily about visibly and publicly taking a stance against the encroachment of more extreme branches of Islam in those societies.

Isn't a worry though, that a secular society takes a visible, punitive stance against the 'encroachment' of a philosophy, rather than having the cultural wherewithal to absorb and include that philosophy to the benefit of all?

kalych · 11-12-2013 09:18AM

Absolam wrote: »

Or maybe, prohibiting things based on how much it offends someone, despite it doing them no actual harm, is just silly?

Yes, I'd imagine some women in France may indeed be forced to dress in a way they wouldn't choose for themselves. Some may be forced to wear burkas. The French state enacted legislation banning men from forcing women to wear burkas, it would appear now without any consideration for how that law could be prosecuted. Maybe some thought before passing these laws might have yielded a strategy that didn't stigmatise the women supposedly being protected, and instead might create an environment where women weren't being coerced in either direction?

Why are you assuming that it is the legislator's duty to consider how this is enforced? This is for the executive to work out. It may be that there isn't enough trust in it by women just yet, it will take some time to build up this trust through media campaigns and helplines. This does not mean the legislation should not have been introduced to criminalise men forcing women to wear burkas.

Absolam · 11-12-2013 09:22AM

I'm religious and support the ban

kalych wrote: »

Why are you assuming that it is the legislator's duty to consider how this is enforced? This is for the executive to work out. It may be that there isn't enough trust in it by women just yet, it will take some time to build up this trust through media campaigns and helplines. This does not mean the legislation should not have been introduced to criminalise men forcing women to wear burkas.

Why would a legislator not consider its' enforcement when introducing a new law? Particularly when it would seem readily apparent that the only people likely to be be penalised as a result of the law are those it is intended (supposedly) to protect? You don't think a legislator should pass a law without any thought for its' execution do you?

kalych · 11-12-2013 09:57AM

Absolam wrote: »

Why would a legislator not consider its' enforcement when introducing a new law? Particularly when it would seem readily apparent that the only people likely to be be penalised as a result of the law are those it is intended (supposedly) to protect? You don't think a legislator should pass a law without any thought for its' execution do you?

Not that they shouldn't 'think' about it, but rather that the fact that if the law is a prerequisite for a change in societal perception, as in this case, it should be passed and may take a while to become effective.

Do you suggest not to pass corruption laws in corrupt countries, just because they are not very effective and mightn't be enforced?

It is a non-argument to me. Up until now if the woman rang a helpline in Belgium about being forced to wear a burka, the operator could only advise her that it is not illegal and no action may be taken against the man. Now at least the operator can advise a course of action, not just helplessly sit there. Do you think this is not already a small benefit, which may already translate in women feeling more impowered and pushing back on their husbands or just because you don't "hear" about persecutions, it is non- existant for you or somehow useless? Why do you presume it doesn't act as a deterrent? Maybe we will never hear about widespread persecutions because it will be an effective preventative measure. Maybe that is what the legislators were 'thinking', did you 'think' of that?

smacl · 11-12-2013 10:07AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

Isn't a worry though, that a secular society takes a visible, punitive stance against the 'encroachment' of a philosophy, rather than having the cultural wherewithal to absorb and include that philosophy to the benefit of all?

Of course it is a worry. In fact I'd go so far as saying that much of what is happening around burka bans is driven by fear, and hence largely reactive rather than proactive, such that the resultant legislation seems to me to be knee jerk politics which provides little value other than appease the public that something is being done. Very difficult to know in the long term whether it will help form a more integrated society, or polarise sections of society along religious and racial fault lines.

gaynorvader · 11-12-2013 11:20AM

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

Absolam wrote: »

Or maybe, prohibiting things based on how much it offends someone, despite it doing them no actual harm, is just silly?

{...}

Probably. But that goes equally for nudity. I was just pointing out that your logic was flawed.

Absolam · 11-12-2013 01:40PM

I'm religious and support the ban

kalych wrote: »

Not that they shouldn't 'think' about it, but rather that the fact that if the law is a prerequisite for a change in societal perception, as in this case, it should be passed and may take a while to become effective.

Sorry I just can't see how this law is a prerequisite for a change in societal perception? At best, it takes the 'problem' out of the public eye, at worst it criminalises women who are the victims of the 'problem'. Unless the desired effect on society is to further marginalise minorities, they obviously haven't thought about it.

kalych wrote: »

Do you suggest not to pass corruption laws in corrupt countries, just because they are not very effective and mightn't be enforced?

No, I suggest fining the victims of corruption is not a great step towards removing corruption. Yes, the victims might get tired of being fined and turn on those victimising them, but I suspect they were already under enough pressure from being victims in the first place.

kalych wrote: »

Why do you presume it doesn't act as a deterrent?

I don't presume; I haven't seen any evidence that it acts as a deterrent. Surely a secular state should rely on evidence over faith?

kalych wrote: »

Maybe we will never hear about widespread persecutions because it will be an effective preventative measure. Maybe that is what the legislators were 'thinking', did you 'think' of that?

You might actually be close to the mark. So much easier to claim you stopped something that never happened, than deal with a real issue that is happening in front of you. That's what the legislators may have been thinking...

Mark Hamill · 11-12-2013 03:40PM

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

Absolam wrote: »

Isn't a worry though, that a secular society takes a visible, punitive stance against the 'encroachment' of a philosophy, rather than having the cultural wherewithal to absorb and include that philosophy to the benefit of all?

I'm sorry, exactly what aspect of the burka (and its associated philosophy concerning women) is in any way a benefit to all?

Dublin Red Devil · 11-12-2013 06:31PM

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

old hippy wrote: »

Ah, it's simply to cause us stress, is it?

. It's provocative yes. If you must wear Muslim head-dress in western society, wear a Hijab. A western women wouldn't walk around Islamabad or Kabul in a bikini

old hippy · 11-12-2013 06:32PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Dublin Red Devil wrote: »

. It's provocative yes. If you must wear Muslim head-dress in western society, wear a Hijab. A western women wouldn't walk around Islamabad or Kabul in a bikini

So, we must restrict the wearing of certain items of clothing to be on a par with certain countries? Interesting.

Dublin Red Devil · 11-12-2013 06:40PM

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

old hippy wrote: »

So, we must restrict the wearing of certain items of clothing to be on a par with certain countries? Interesting.

When in Rome do as the Romans do, Have some fcking respect for the country you are living in. Learn the language, Try to integrate with society. By all means practice your religion in mosques, among your fellow Muslims or in the privacy of your own home with your family. But respect the customs and traditions of the country where you reside

Absolam · 12-12-2013 03:37AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm sorry, exactly what aspect of the burka (and its associated philosophy concerning women) is in any way a benefit to all?

I'm assuming that Islam, like other religions, has something worth assimilating into a society, even if it's simply the availability of an additional perspective.

Dublin Red Devil wrote: »

. It's provocative yes. If you must wear Muslim head-dress in western society, wear a Hijab. A western women wouldn't walk around Islamabad or Kabul in a bikini

Surely the fault lies more with the provoked than the provoker? If you can't handle the fact that other people dress differently to you, that's really your problem not theirs (and yes that goes for bikini haters in Kabul too).

Dublin Red Devil wrote: »

respect the customs and traditions of the country where you reside

Why? Why not try and change them to ones you like better? If everyone agrees your new customs and traditions are better, you'll have made a whole country happier!

smacl · 12-12-2013 08:24AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

I'm assuming that Islam, like other religions, has something worth assimilating into a society, even if it's simply the availability of an additional perspective.

A secular society largely rejects the the perspective offered by the church of any religion. The worth of religion is at a cultural level, an individual level and that of the organisation of any given church or faith. Many great things have come from Islam, in terms of maths, arts, etc..., but that doesn't mean society should adopt its less desirable archaic traditions, any more than we would take on undesirable traditions of ancient Greece or Rome.

Surely the fault lies more with the provoked than the provoker? If you can't handle the fact that other people dress differently to you, that's really your problem not theirs (and yes that goes for bikini haters in Kabul too).

Wearing a burka in France will get you some nasty looks and sneers and a fine. Wearing a bikini in Kabul will get you stoned. Who's got the bigger problem?

Why? Why not try and change them to ones you like better? If everyone agrees your new customs and traditions are better, you'll have made a whole country happier!

In Europe, you can complain if you're not happy about the rules, as was the case with high court actions against the burka bans in France and Belgium. Both societies went through due process, decided that burka wearing was not good for them, and hence upheld the bans. If you're in a tiny minority, trying to uphold an archaic tradition that everyone else considers wrong, perhaps they're right and your wrong.

Dublin Red Devil wrote:

respect the customs and traditions of the country where you reside

I think this very important, and can be more simply stated as respect your fellow citizens. Religious zeal, or a misplaced sense of modesty, are not excuses to show two fingers to the rest of society.

kalych · 12-12-2013 08:58AM

Absolam wrote: »

You might actually be close to the mark. So much easier to claim you stopped something that never happened, than deal with a real issue that is happening in front of you. That's what the legislators may have been thinking...

Up till now I thought we were discussing merits of the law, but it seems that you do not believe such a thing as fathers forcing their teenage daughters to wear Burka's happens at all, did I understand you correctly on this? You are looking for statistical evidence of this, right?

Burka ban

Comments