Burka ban

Absolam · 21-12-2013 01:37PM

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

If wider society finds that unacceptable however, they need to reconsider their stance. Freedom of religious expression does not excuse one from behaving in a socially unacceptable manner in public.

Wider society has by times found rock and roll to be socially unacceptable. It has found being homosexual to be socially unacceptable. It has found women voting to be socially unacceptable. Should we have said these people need to reconsider their stance? You may do these things behind closed doors but we're not having you behave in such a socially unacceptable manner in public? Or should we then as now look to allow people the freedom to express themselves without harming others?

Absolam · 21-12-2013 01:39PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

No. We are talking about face coverings or masks, not clothing.

Face coverings, even masks, are clothing. Why are you afraid of that? Is it more ok to ban it if it's not clothing?

smacl · 21-12-2013 01:55PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

Wider society has by times found rock and roll to be socially unacceptable. It has found being homosexual to be socially unacceptable. It has found women voting to be socially unacceptable. Should we have said these people need to reconsider their stance? You may do these things behind closed doors but we're not having you behave in such a socially unacceptable manner in public? Or should we then as now look to allow people the freedom to express themselves without harming others?

Rock and roll, acceptance of homosexuality, emancipation of women and, more generally, a rejection of a tradition of bigotry led by repressive religious hierarchies, are exactly what these bans are all about. Paradoxical as it may seem, it is quite reasonable for a broadly liberal society to reject what it sees as repressive and oppressive symbolism, in much the same way it is reasonable to subdue incitement to hatred.

Absolam · 21-12-2013 02:30PM

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Rock and roll, acceptance of homosexuality, emancipation of women and, more generally, a rejection of a tradition of bigotry led by repressive religious hierarchies, are exactly what these bans are all about. Paradoxical as it may seem, it is quite reasonable for a broadly liberal society to reject what it sees as repressive and oppressive symbolism, in much the same way it is reasonable to subdue incitement to hatred.

The acceptance of all of these things by broadly liberal society did nothing whatsoever to change the stance of repressive religious hierarchies though, so the idea that that is 'what these bans are all about' is a patent nonsense. These are civil bans by a civil society; they won't change any religious ideology, and in fact only affect those that are supposedly already oppressed by their religion, and must now submit to further oppression by civil society. To follow your incitement to hatred example; it's the equivalent of fining anyone who gets beaten up by racists.

smacl · 21-12-2013 02:44PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

The acceptance of all of these things by broadly liberal society did nothing whatsoever to change the stance of repressive religious hierarchies though, so the idea that that is 'what these bans are all about' is a patent nonsense. These are civil bans by a civil society; they won't change any religious ideology, and in fact only affect those that are supposedly already oppressed by their religion, and must now submit to further oppression by civil society.

Rubbish. Look at Pope Frank putting on his big kind smile for the gay community, as the Catholic church are finally cottoning to the fact that they're becoming increasingly irrelevant in an evermore secular society, and are scrabbling desperately to re-invent themselves.

Religion doesn't lead European secular society any more, and in fact even struggles to follow it. These bans also serve to underpin the progress that has been made in recent decades in this regard.

To follow your incitement to hatred example; it's the equivalent of fining anyone who gets beaten up by racists.

You're going to have to explain your logic there, because try as I might, I can't fathom it. Are you now taking the stance that women wearing burqas are in fact coerced into doing so, because that's the only analogy I can take from the above?

Banbh · 21-12-2013 04:09PM

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

Is it more ok to ban it if it's not clothing?

Yes. Banning clothing is just silly. Banning the concealment of female members of a misogynous group by its male leaders and controllers is a good thing.

Absolam · 21-12-2013 06:19PM

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Rubbish. Look at Pope Frank putting on his big kind smile for the gay community, as the Catholic church are finally cottoning to the fact that they're becoming increasingly irrelevant in an evermore secular society, and are scrabbling desperately to re-invent themselves.
Religion doesn't lead European secular society any more, and in fact even struggles to follow it. These bans also serve to underpin the progress that has been made in recent decades in this regard.

And yet decades after homosexual acts have been decriminalised in the majority of first world countries, it remains a sin in the Catholic religion. Not the greatest achievement to point to really?
Exactly how do the bans underpin secular progress so? Will they make people more free? Will they give them more them more of a voice? Will they demonstrate how people can be different yet un alienated in a multicultural society? Or will they just say conform to our norms, not yours, or be punished for it?

smacl wrote: »

You're going to have to explain your logic there, because try as I might, I can't fathom it. Are you now taking the stance that women wearing burqas are in fact coerced into doing so, because that's the only analogy I can take from the above?

I'm saying the reasoning put forward on this thread by posters like Banbh is that the purpose of the legislation is to prevent people being coerced into wearing and being oppressed by wearing a burka, and such logic is akin to punishing people who are victims of racism in order to prevent racism.

Absolam · 21-12-2013 06:21PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

Yes. Banning clothing is just silly. Banning the concealment of female members of a misogynous group by its male leaders and controllers is a good thing.

Excellent. So as long as we convince you that Burkas are actually an item of clothing, you concede that banning them is silly?
But if they are in fact not clothing then banning them is a good idea?

smacl · 21-12-2013 07:03PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

And yet decades after homosexual acts have been decriminalised in the majority of first world countries, it remains a sin in the Catholic religion. Not the greatest achievement to point to really?

Yet the pope is bending over backwards to accept gay Christians back into the flock. The point is simply that western society is evolving as power shifts from the churches to the state. That the Catholic church has some particularly retarded notions of morality with respect to homosexuality, among other things, becomes less important as they lose influence in how the state makes decisions.

Exactly how do the bans underpin secular progress so? Will they make people more free? Will they give them more them more of a voice? Will they demonstrate how people can be different yet un alienated in a multicultural society? Or will they just say conform to our norms, not yours, or be punished for it?

By openly rejecting symbols of oppression, even if this does interfere to some small extent with the individual freedoms of religious expression of a tiny minority. It is not so much about adhering to the norms of society, as openly and willingly acknowledging its core values. In France, egalitarianism is one such nationally held core value, which most French people seem to believe is contradictory to wearing a burqa. Bans do indeed help voice this position.

I'm saying the reasoning put forward on this thread by posters like Banbh is that the purpose of the legislation is to prevent people being coerced into wearing and being oppressed by wearing a burka, and such logic is akin to punishing people who are victims of racism in order to prevent racism.

Not really though, is it? If you accept the coercion argument, which your logic demands, a closer analogy would be banning shackles to help those in bondage.

Banbh · 21-12-2013 07:04PM

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

No. By calling the face-cover an item of clothing you are suggesting that those who oppose this cruel and degrading restriction on women are just being picky over a fashion item.

The mask has more to do with faschism than fashion.

Absolam · 21-12-2013 07:58PM

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Yet the pope is bending over backwards to accept gay Christians back into the flock. The point is simply that western society is evolving as power shifts from the churches to the state. That the Catholic church has some particularly retarded notions of morality with respect to homosexuality, among other things, becomes less important as they lose influence in how the state makes decisions.

But if the state makes the same oppressive laws about how people may or may not dress, then what is the point of shifting power from church to state? Same oppression, different oppressor.

smacl wrote: »

By openly rejecting symbols of oppression, even if this does interfere to some small extent with the individual freedoms of religious expression of a tiny minority. It is not so much about adhering to the norms of society, as openly and willingly acknowledging its core values. In France, egalitarianism is one such nationally held core value, which most French people seem to believe is contradictory to wearing a burqa. Bans do indeed help voice this position.

. How does interfering with individual freedoms openly reject symbols of oppression? I would have thought fining people who dress differently would actually create symbols of oppression! Dress as we say or be worse off... How is that not oppressive? If egalitarianism is such a core value, how does that square with singling out a minority to be punished for being different? Such a ban can only voice the position that egality is only for those who conform.

smacl wrote: »

Not really though, is it? If you accept the coercion argument, which your logic demands, a closer analogy would be banning shackles to help those in bondage.

Well then, would fining slaves for wearing their shackles help force the slave masters to do away with shackles? Or would it just rub a little extra salt in the wounds of those in bondage.

Banbh wrote: »

No. By calling the face-cover an item of clothing you are suggesting that those who oppose this cruel and degrading restriction on women are just being picky over a fashion item.
The mask has more to do with faschism than fashion.

I wouldn't reduce clothing to just fashion; there's a lot more to the subject than that. I know the French are quite invested in fashion but personally I've always felt style to be more important.
Maybe you'd concede they're items of clothing that aren't fashionable? In fact, particularly unfashionable in France?
Is it still silly to ban unfashionable clothing, or is it just silly to ban fashionable clothing?

Masks on the other hand I'd associate more with revelry than fascism... We wear masks at hallow'een, and carnival for masque balls and suchlike (although obviously not in France anymore!), but I can't say I recall masks being a big thing with the Third Reich or Mussolinis Italy? It seems to me fascism was quite happy to show it's face as it banned various organisations and curtailed the freedoms of minorities.... all in the name of the people of course.....those that conformed anyway.

smacl · 22-12-2013 11:08AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

How does interfering with individual freedoms openly reject symbols of oppression?

By banning oppressive symbols, you deny that oppression a voice, and remove the potential for social unrest that voice could cause. for example, you can't wear a t-shirt with a swastika on it in Germany, although by your logic the t-shirt isn't harming anyone. But if you were to wear that t-shirt, even if it was legal, it could be a cause of severe upset, to the extent you would be vilified and possibly even assaulted. Whether this should happen or not is a different argument, the plain fact is that it could, regardless of who is right and who is wrong, and your t-shirt would be the source of provocation. You say that you're against public decency laws and similarly incitement to hatred legislation, insofar as you don't want to be censored, as no harm is caused, but openly displaying symbols that people find hateful does cause harm and social unrest. Which symbols and why are very specific to any given society.

MrPudding · 22-12-2013 12:20PM

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

Absolam wrote: »

But if the state makes the same oppressive laws about how people may or may not dress, then what is the point of shifting power from church to state? Same oppression, different oppressor.

So you can see no difference between these two edicts:

1) You can't wear anything except this big bag that will completely hide your identity, prevent you from becoming a part of the society you live in and undermine your status as a human being, and,
2) You can wear anything but this big bag that will completely hide your identity, prevent you from becoming a part of the society you live in and undermine your status as a human being.

MrP

Gordon · 22-12-2013 03:24PM

Interesting results so far. I see that Brown Bomber is religious judging by the answer that he gave, which is in contradiction to his response below.

Cabaal wrote: »

Brown Bomber, are you a catholic or a religious person?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. Why?

Maybe he can clear this up when he returns from his ban.

Absolam · 22-12-2013 04:10PM

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

By banning oppressive symbols, you deny that oppression a voice, and remove the potential for social unrest that voice could cause. for example, you can't wear a t-shirt with a swastika on it in Germany, although by your logic the t-shirt isn't harming anyone.

Interesting theory. So a year or so on, would you say the ban has denied/reduced the voice of militant/oppressive Islam in France? Actually, can you point to any occasion where legislating against the victims of oppression has reduced that oppression?

smacl wrote: »

But if you were to wear that t-shirt, even if it was legal, it could be a cause of severe upset, to the extent you would be vilified and possibly even assaulted. Whether this should happen or not is a different argument, the plain fact is that it could, regardless of who is right and who is wrong, and your t-shirt would be the source of provocation.

Sorry, you're saying I should be prevented from doing something that hurts no one, so that I don't provoke someone else into attacking me? This is sounding suspiciously like someone else's logic.......

smacl wrote: »

You say that you're against public decency laws and similarly incitement to hatred legislation, insofar as you don't want to be censored, as no harm is caused, but openly displaying symbols that people find hateful does cause harm and social unrest. Which symbols and why are very specific to any given society.

Actually I didn't, and I quite support preventing incitement to hatred. Nevertheless, I don't think France has a particularly troubled history with Islam? I very much doubt the average French citizen is likely to be spurred to civil unrest by the sight of a woman in a burka, or any other middle eastern symbol come to that.

Absolam · 22-12-2013 04:17PM

I'm religious and support the ban

MrPudding wrote: »

So you can see no difference between these two edicts:

1) You can't wear anything except this big bag that will completely hide your identity, prevent you from becoming a part of the society you live in and undermine your status as a human being, and,
2) You can wear anything but this big bag that will completely hide your identity, prevent you from becoming a part of the society you live in and undermine your status as a human being.

MrP

The difference between the two is the first is phrased in such a way as to try and make the edict seem unreasonable, the second is phrased in such a way as to try and make the edict seem reasonable.
Both, of course, are unreasonable edicts.

smacl · 23-12-2013 11:53AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think France has a particularly troubled history with Islam?

Really?

Absolam · 23-12-2013 06:44PM

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Really?

Perhaps I should have excluded recent history then.
My point being that as per your post some societies, such as Germany, as you say, certainly would have very negative historical issues with certain symbols, but France (unlike say parts of Spain) hasn't had historical issues with Islam, and there are no negative connotations to, or issues with, symbols like the crescent and star, minarets etc.
Even still, worth pointing out that many of the hits on your link are riots as a result of the burka ban. The ban has actually caused unrest instead of removing it.

smacl · 24-12-2013 11:19AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

Perhaps I should have excluded recent history then.
My point being that as per your post some societies, such as Germany, as you say, certainly would have very negative historical issues with certain symbols, but France (unlike say parts of Spain) hasn't had historical issues with Islam, and there are no negative connotations to, or issues with, symbols like the crescent and star, minarets etc.
Even still, worth pointing out that many of the hits on your link are riots as a result of the burka ban. The ban has actually caused unrest instead of removing it.

Going back further, France had a strong imperial presence in Africa, and to an extent they could be seen to be paying a penalty for this, insofar as the bulk of the Muslim influx has been from North Africa. From my understanding, the principal cause of the riots was ghettoisation of the North African communities, though the burqa ban certainly has added to the unrest.

French Muslim feminists still strongly support the ban, where external human rights organisations such as Amnesty international do not. Reading Fadala Amara among others, I tend to agree with the former position. I've already linked articles supporting both sides of the argument, and personally I feel both sides deserve reading in order to move on from the 'it is only an article of clothing' argument.

gaynorvader · 24-12-2013 12:32PM

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

smacl wrote: »

Going back further, France had a strong imperial presence in Africa, and to an extent they could be seen to be paying a penalty for this, insofar as the bulk of the Muslim influx has been from North Africa. From my understanding, the principal cause of the riots was ghettoisation of the North African communities, though the burqa ban certainly has added to the unrest.

French Muslim feminists still strongly support the ban, where external human rights organisations such as Amnesty international do not. Reading Fadala Amara among others, I tend to agree with the former position. I've already linked articles supporting both sides of the argument, and personally I feel both sides deserve reading in order to move on from the 'it is only an article of clothing' argument.

I think to call it "just an article of clothing" would be either extremely naive or extremely dishonest.

Absolam · 24-12-2013 01:37PM

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Going back further, France had a strong imperial presence in Africa, and to an extent they could be seen to be paying a penalty for this, insofar as the bulk of the Muslim influx has been from North Africa. From my understanding, the principal cause of the riots was ghettoisation of the North African communities, though the burqa ban certainly has added to the unrest.

Agreed, it's readily apparent that Frances' immigrant issues have far more to with the hangover from it's imperial history than religion, or religious tolerance. Which makes the burka ban even more insidious, from a certain point of view it can easily be seen as reminding those ex-subjects that they are still subject and must behave as their old masters dictate if they wish to partake of the benefits of French 'liberty, equality, and fraternity' to any degree.

smacl wrote: »

French Muslim feminists still strongly support the ban, where external human rights organisations such as Amnesty international do not. Reading Fadala Amara among others, I tend to agree with the former position. I've already linked articles supporting both sides of the argument, and personally I feel both sides deserve reading in order to move on from the 'it is only an article of clothing' argument.

'It's only an article of clothing' does no justice to either side of the debate. I believe there are genuine arguments on both sides from a freedom perspective, however, the pro side is arguing that it is hopefully a step towards a potential freedom, whereas the negative side is arguing that it's an immediate infringement on an existing freedom. Which is why I fall on the negative side; better bread now than the promise of bread later.

robindch · 10-02-2014 11:54PM

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

The burka ban debate visits Fine Gael, very briefly indeed:

http://www.thejournal.ie/burqa-cork-1309582-Feb2014

TheJournal wrote:

FINE GAEL HAS this evening distanced itself from comments made by former Lord Mayor of Cork, councillor Joe O’Callaghan, who said earlier today that a ban on the Burqa and Niquab is “common sense”. Speaking to Niall Boylan on Classic Hits 4fm today, O’Callaghan said Irish people are “sometimes afraid of our own shadows to say things that might not be popular”. “This has nothing to do with religious freedoms. The Koran doesn’t even state that women should have to wear the Burqa or the Niqab” he said.

Whether it’s a balaclava or a burqa, we don’t go along in this free secular liberal republic state of anyone hiding the wearers identity. I would say it’s probably a medieval system. The councillor said he wants “everyone who lives in this country to be free and safe so any detachment from that, we should face up to it and say look this doesn’t make sense”.

Boylan put it to the councillor that what he was saying was ‘when in Rome do what the Romans do’, to which he responded: “Absolutely, and stop apologising for it as we tend to do. We should stop apologising to the whole world”. When contacted by TheJournal.ie today, a spokesperson for Fine Gael said: “Councillor Callaghan was expressing his personal opinion, not Fine Gael policy”.

wp_rathead · 11-02-2014 12:48AM

I'm religious and support the ban

A Comment on Journal.ie wrote:

Yes to freedom speech….No to burqa!

:rolleyes:

Banbh · 11-02-2014 08:07AM

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

Good man Joe! He has some good lines that will be worth using: "Whether it’s a balaclava or a burqa, we don’t go along, in this free, secular, liberal, republic, state of anyone hiding the wearer's identity".
Of course it's not a secular republic unfortunately but his heart is in the right place.

Absolam · 12-02-2014 07:39AM

I'm religious and support the ban

If you mean his heart is in the grabbing some attention place, I agree. He hasn't been particularly vocal in the past about banning people from wearing balaclavas. I wonder why?

Banbh · 12-02-2014 07:46AM

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

He hasn't been particularly vocal in the past about banning people from wearing balaclavas. I wonder why?

Hmmm! Could it be that Fine Gael is financed by bank robbers?

Peregrinus · 12-02-2014 10:19AM

Banbh wrote: »

Good man Joe! He has some good lines that will be worth using: "Whether it’s a balaclava or a burqa, we don’t go along, in this free, secular, liberal, republic, state of anyone hiding the wearer's identity".

Yes, it's a free republic, and we should express that freedom by passing laws telling women what they may and may not wear.

Reminds me of the spoof "Republican ballad" that Rosaleen Linehan and Des Keogh used to sing:

"Ireland shall be free
From the centre to the sea
And if you don't agree
We'll blow you all to bits!"

Banbh · 12-02-2014 11:59AM

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

Yes, it's a free republic, and we should express that freedom by passing laws telling women what they may and may not wear.

Yes we should have laws banning masks that conceal identity. Citizens should be free to interact as people, and this requires facial recognition.

Absolam · 12-02-2014 12:20PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Banbh wrote: »

Yes we should have laws banning masks that conceal identity. Citizens should be free to interact as people, and this requires facial recognition.

No more halloween then? Should we revise motorcycle helmet laws too? While we're at it we should do something about people wearing scarves, and sure those kids in hoodies have had it coming too....
On second thoughts, if I can recognise their faces, am I obliged to interact with them? I'm not sure I like this new freedom you're offering.

Banbh · 12-02-2014 12:41PM

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

No more halloween then?

Now you're being silly.

if I can recognise their faces, am I obliged to interact with them?

And now even sillier.

Burka ban

Comments