Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Burka ban

1…9091939596…138

Comments

  • #2762
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    So if an individual assaults someone, use the law, but if a group of individuals assaults others, then we can't?
    Why couldn't we? Groups of individuals are subject to the same laws regarding assault as individuals, with the additional possibility of an offence of affray?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The problem of the burka, we should help them be free of it, if you don't get that at this stage in the thread we are going to have serious problems going any further.
    I think at this stage of the thread we can be fairly sure that no-one has yet established the burka itself is a problem, that anyone needs to be free of it, or that anyone else is entitled to help them to that freedom. Perhaps that's why you're having serious problems going further.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You ignore the inspiration as default justification for the act, not as the source. I.e. you can't just say "thats my culture/religion" as if that makes it ok. You need to go into the logic and outcomes of the act to assess it.
    So you would like us to ignore the religious and cultural aspects that you think negatively impact your argument, but include those that you think support your argument? I don't think your cherry picking what should be admissible helps the debate to be honest.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Are you under the impression that biggotry only hurts the people being oppressed? Is racism not bad for all society, not just black people?
    You specifically said wearing a burka hurts everyone else. I'd just like to see some evidence for the assertion; no one I've heard of has ended up in hospital because someone else wore a burka. No one I've heard of has mental issues that have been ascribed to someone else wearing a burka. No one I've heard of has had their freedom impaired, or quality of life reduced, because someone else wore a burka (yes I'm happy to stipulate that some people have had their freedom impaired and quality of life reduced because someone forced them to wear a burka themselves). Right now a woman is walking down Mary St wearing a burka, and everyone else appears to be unaffected.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No, its not, this has been debunked a multitude of times in this thread, don't be so disingenuous.
    The argument that a burka is not a piece of clothing has been attempted numerous times in the thread. Not once has anyone put forward a convincing rationale.
    Absent context, the burka remains simply an item of clothing. Ask an Inuit, or a Chinese farm worker, or Peruvian tribesman what they see when they look at a Burka, and they won't tell you it's anything other than a piece of cloth, because they don't know the context you ascribe to it.
    It's disingenuous to pretend you've won the argument when you haven't even made the point.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The burka is more than a piece of clothing, as can be shown from the simple fact that only people from a small subset of one religion wear it at all. If it was only a piece of clothing, then it wouldn't only be associated and found within a particular tiny minority.
    Irish tap shoes are only worn by a small subset of the population.
    Seal skin hoods are only worn by a small subset of the population.
    Jade necklaces are only worn by a small subset of the population.
    Leather chaps are only worn by a small subset of the population.
    These are all generally associated with and found within a particular tiny minority. And yet, they are items of clothing.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You think these women won't recieve any social retribution from their own minority in our society?
    So you want to punish them first before their minority gets them? What's wrong with punishing the minority who are exacting retribution instead?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    And the point about god is irrelevant, the same women believe their men are justified by god to beat them, but we don't allow that.
    I didn't bring up divine retribution, you did. If you think it's irrelevant, why did you bring it up?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You are also taking the piss, I've explained my point perfectly clear.
    Yes, you clearly thought you could claim the Koran says something it doesn't, and that deriding others education was a good way to claim superior understanding. It turns out you were wrong. That's clear.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    In what way is not a tent?
    In the same way that it is not an elephant; it does not conform to a consensual definition of a tent. If you popped into the Great Outdoors to purchase a tent, and walked out with a burka, would you be happy with your purchase? If not, I suspect you agree that a burka is not a tent.

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    That just makes them hypocrites (and misogynists).
    So, exactly the same as people in Irish society where there is also an unequal standard of physical modesty for men and women.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    That is the same question, in terms of the asnwer you looking for. The banning of the burka is justified because of why the burka is used, thats why the people who support it don't also support a ban on halloween masks and why you wouldn't be punished for just covering your face.
    How do you know what answer I was looking for?
    I asked how is Banbh not proposing to punish me if she is proposing to punish everyone who covers their face and I intend to wear a Burka.
    You replied because of why I am covering my face.
    Are you saying Banbh is not proposing to punish everyone who covers their face? What she said was
    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.
    I don't see any derogation there for people wearing burkas who are wearing them for a different reason from the one we don't like.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You are clearly taking the piss in this debate, looking for anything and everything to disagree with, just for the sake of it. My patience wears thin.
    At best, the arguments put forward so far for banning burkas are worth taking the piss out of, just to highlight the lack of thought behind them. At worst, it's unbelievably scary how people might be convinced to oppress others 'for their own good', and these arguments deserve the most critical of scrutinies, especially given the Irish experience with the magdalene laundries and industrial schools for boys.
    Both of which were run by orders who believe patience is a virtue by the way, so maybe they're not all bad.


  • #2763
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    Why couldn't we? Groups of individuals are subject to the same laws regarding assault as individuals, with the additional possibility of an offence of affray?

    You are the one who said "using the law against religious minorities is unconscionable", make up your mind.
    Absolam wrote: »
    I think at this stage of the thread we can be fairly sure that no-one has yet established the burka itself is a problem, that anyone needs to be free of it, or that anyone else is entitled to help them to that freedom.

    3118668.jpg
    70 f*cking pages explaining how the burka is a problem and arguing over the best thing to do about it and this is the best you can do? To continue to argue with someone who supports misogyny is to give that misogyny credence as a point of view.


  • #2764
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You are the one who said "using the law against religious minorities is unconscionable", make up your mind.
    Didn't you ask 'if a group of individuals assaults others, then we can't use the law'? That's what I replied to. What's that got to do with using the law against religious minorities?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    70 f*cking pages explaining how the burka is a problem and arguing over the best thing to do about it and this is the best you can do?
    You may have missed some of the points over the last 70 pages if that's what you think the thread is about. But a clue would be, we're still debating whether the burka should be banned. Mostly because it's not the burka that's the problem.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    To continue to argue with someone who supports misogyny is to give that misogyny credence as a point of view.
    No, I don't think so. As long as you advocate punishing innocent women I'll continue to argue against your misogynist point of view. I don't think my argument lends you any credence, after all, all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. Or in this case, say nothing.


  • #2765
    Banbh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭Banbh


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    On the Pat Kenny show this morning Prof Tarife Khalidi, [my phonetic spelling] who lectures and writes about Islam, mentioned his mother: "all her life having suffered from the veil", she went up to the podium [at her university in Beirut] and unveiled. This, according to the good prof. led to other women who unveiled having acid thrown in their faces etc.

    The relevant bit is at 41:00 if you go to Newstalk playback and the item begins at about 30:00.

    I mention it here as evidence that women are not choosing a fashion statement but are compelled to don this punishment.


  • #2766
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Banbh wrote: »
    On the Pat Kenny show this morning Prof Tarife Khalidi, [my phonetic spelling] who lectures and writes about Islam, mentioned his mother: "all her life having suffered from the veil", she went up to the podium [at her university in Beirut] and unveiled. This, according to the good prof. led to other women who unveiled having acid thrown in their faces etc.

    The relevant bit is at 41:00 if you go to Newstalk playback and the item begins at about 30:00.

    I mention it here as evidence that women are not choosing a fashion statement but are compelled to don this punishment.

    Khalidi's mother, a well respected feminist, took this shocking action in 1927. She's certainly part of the reason there is a women's rights movement in the Middle East, but I can't imagine she would condone punishing women for choosing to wear the veil.


  • Advertisement
  • #2767
    Banbh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭Banbh


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    The point is that she said 'all her life having suffered from the veil' thus revealing it as an instrument of oppression. It is not universally true of course and I don't make that claim but it is revealing.


  • #2768
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Banbh wrote: »
    The point is that she said 'all her life having suffered from the veil' thus revealing it as an instrument of oppression. It is not universally true of course and I don't make that claim but it is revealing.

    In all fairness, it was her son said it, not her. Anbara Salam came from quite a privileged background; arguably she was subject to considerably less oppression than, say, working class women in Dublin at the time. That's in no way intended to diminish her efforts to emancipate women, and I don't argue that women have not been forced to wear the burka against their will; it is certainly a symbol of oppression for some people, however debatable its' instrumentality is. Nevertheless, like it or not, other women wear the burka freely and by choice. Oppressing those women does nothing to unoppress the others, nor does it go any way towards convincing those who insist on a 7th century view of Islam that they should change their minds.


  • #2769
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    The European Court of Human Rights has upheld a ban by France on wearing the Muslim full-face veil - the niqab.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28106900
    BBC wrote:
    A case was brought by a 24-year-old French woman, who argued that the ban on wearing the veil in public violated her freedom of religion and expression. French law says nobody can wear in a public space clothing intended to conceal the face. The penalty for doing so can be a 150-euro fine (£120; $205).

    The 2010 law came in under former conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy. The court ruled that the ban "was not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it concealed the face".

    The word hijab comes from the Arabic for veil and is used to describe the headscarves worn by Muslim women. These scarves come in myriad styles and colours. The type most commonly worn in the West is a square scarf that covers the head and neck but leaves the face clear. A court statement said the ruling also "took into account the state's submission that the face played a significant role in social interaction.

    "The Court was also able to understand the view that individuals might not wish to see, in places open to all, practices or attitudes which would fundamentally call into question the possibility of open interpersonal relationships, which, by virtue of an established consensus, formed an indispensable element of community life within the society in question."


  • #2770
    kiffer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    The European Court of Human Rights has upheld a ban by France on wearing the Muslim full-face veil - the niqab.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28106900

    " French law says nobody can wear in a public space clothing intended to conceal the face. The penalty for doing so can be a 150-euro fine (£120; $205)."

    So... no morph suits in France then?
    No mascot costumes or fancy dress masks either?


  • #2771
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    kiffer wrote: »
    " French law says nobody can wear in a public space clothing intended to conceal the face. The penalty for doing so can be a 150-euro fine (£120; $205)."

    So... no morph suits in France then?
    No mascot costumes or fancy dress masks either?
    It probably hinges on what "intended to conceal the face" is interpreted as. A morph suit or fancy dress costume is not worn with the explicit intent of concealing the face, the concealing of the face is a secondary effect of the primary intention of the suit or costume. The primary, and sole intention of a face veil is to conceal the face. There is a difference.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #2772
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,578 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    kiffer wrote: »
    " French law says nobody can wear in a public space clothing intended to conceal the face. The penalty for doing so can be a 150-euro fine (£120; $205)."

    So... no morph suits in France then?
    No mascot costumes or fancy dress masks either?

    I think Police understand the difference between fancy dress and trying to get away with it in general.

    Take Halloween as an example, you'd get away with dressing up as a Gardai as a costume.

    However try that on the avg day and go about your usual business and it looks like you are impersonating a Gardai. The Gardai will have words with you and rightly so.


  • #2773
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,951 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    Oppressing those women does nothing to unoppress the others, nor does it go any way towards convincing those who insist on a 7th century view of Islam that they should change their minds.

    If the implication here is that atrocities committed in the name of Islam died out after the 7th century, it is totally off the mark, as many atrocities are still committed in the name of Islam today. Not saying that those atrocities wouldn't still happen in the same societies in the absence of Islam, but Islam is put forward as the reason for committing many barbaric acts, e.g. the Boko Haram schoolgirl abductions, Meriam Yehya Ibrahim case, etc.. not to mention an anachronistic morality that is so often in direct opposition with modern notions of egalitarianism.

    My feeling remains that this is still very much what the burqa ban is all about, where égalité is a cornerstone of French life and considered far more important than freedom of religious expression. Rightly so in my opinion.


  • #2774
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    I'm religious and support the ban
    MrPudding wrote: »
    It probably hinges on what "intended to conceal the face" is interpreted as. A morph suit or fancy dress costume is not worn with the explicit intent of concealing the face, the concealing of the face is a secondary effect of the primary intention of the suit or costume. The primary, and sole intention of a face veil is to conceal the face. There is a difference.

    MrP

    Yes it is. That's the point of a costume, to not be yourself.


  • #2775
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    smacl wrote: »
    If the implication here is that atrocities committed in the name of Islam died out after the 7th century, it is totally off the mark, as many atrocities are still committed in the name of Islam today.
    No, my implication was that some Muslims insist on a 7th century view of Islam, rather than the majority of Muslims who have a 20th/21st century view of their religion. Much like Christians.
    smacl wrote: »
    My feeling remains that this is still very much what the burqa ban is all about, where égalité is a cornerstone of French life and considered far more important than freedom of religious expression. Rightly so in my opinion.
    My concern is that the burka ban is more about suppressing the expression of a religious minority viewed by many with suspicion and reducing 'égalité' to a lowest common denominator at the expense of 'Liberté'.
    That concern seems justified when you consider statements like this;
    Cabaal wrote: »
    I think Police understand the difference between fancy dress and trying to get away with it in general. Take Halloween as an example, you'd get away with dressing up as a Gardai as a costume. However try that on the avg day and go about your usual business and it looks like you are impersonating a Gardai. The Gardai will have words with you and rightly so.
    Are the police to not prosecute someone who covers their face for a western tradition like Halloween, but prosecute someone who covers their face for an eastern tradition like niqab? If that is the case, then égalité has flown with liberté. I'm more than a little suspicious that before the ECHR the law is presented as not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question, but solely on the fact that it concealed the face, whereas it's being touted as a 'burka ban'.
    If the Gendarmerie arrest everyone who covers their face in public, including those wearing motorcycle helmets, face scarves, balaclavas, morph suits, mimes (hurrah!), venetian fancy dress, and chinese students in medical masks, then égalité remains, though liberté suffers. However, once they distinguish between those who have a 'good' reason to flout the law by covering their faces and those who are 'trying to get away with it in general', then Liberté and Égalité are gone, with Fraternité not likely to be far after...


  • #2776
    Banbh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭Banbh


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    ABSOLAM: No, my implication was that some Muslims insist on a 7th century view of Islam, rather than the majority of Muslims who have a 20th/21st century view of their religion. Much like Christians.
    It's the 20th/21st century view that worries me - intolerance, bigotry and, in the countries where its writ runs, barbarism.


  • #2777
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Absolam wrote: »
    Are the police to not prosecute someone who covers their face for a western tradition like Halloween, but prosecute someone who covers their face for an eastern tradition like niqab? If that is the case, then égalité has flown with liberté. I'm more than a little suspicious that before the ECHR the law is presented as not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question, but solely on the fact that it concealed the face, whereas it's being touted as a 'burka ban'.
    If the Gendarmerie arrest everyone who covers their face in public, including those wearing motorcycle helmets, face scarves, balaclavas, morph suits, mimes (hurrah!), venetian fancy dress, and chinese students in medical masks, then égalité remains, though liberté suffers. However, once they distinguish between those who have a 'good' reason to flout the law by covering their faces and those who are 'trying to get away with it in general', then Liberté and Égalité are gone, with Fraternité not likely to be far after...
    I would assume that the difference is that people in costume would remove their facial coverings when requested by police, but those covering their faces for cultural reasons would be loathe to do so.


  • #2778
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,951 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    No, my implication was that some Muslims insist on a 7th century view of Islam, rather than the majority of Muslims who have a 20th/21st century view of their religion. Much like Christians.

    Don't get me wrong, I have no time for extreme forms of Christianity either, but so for as I'm aware there aren't so many Christian jurisdictions out there stoning female rape victims who are often just children, jailing people for apostasy, etc... Note we're not talking about individuals here, we're talking about governments of large and sometimes quite wealthy countries.
    My concern is that the burka ban is more about suppressing the expression of a religious minority viewed by many with suspicion and reducing 'égalité' to a lowest common denominator at the expense of 'Liberté'.

    I tend to agree, that's exactly what it is about. The expression in question is very specific in that it treats women as unequal to men. I think it is perfectly reasonable to suppress that expression, regardless of whether some of the women involved are happy with it.
    Are the police to not prosecute someone who covers their face for a western tradition like Halloween, but prosecute someone who covers their face for an eastern tradition like niqab? If that is the case, then égalité has flown with liberté. I'm more than a little suspicious that before the ECHR the law is presented as not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question, but solely on the fact that it concealed the face, whereas it's being touted as a 'burka ban'.
    If the Gendarmerie arrest everyone who covers their face in public, including those wearing motorcycle helmets, face scarves, balaclavas, morph suits, mimes (hurrah!), venetian fancy dress, and chinese students in medical masks, then égalité remains, though liberté suffers. However, once they distinguish between those who have a 'good' reason to flout the law by covering their faces and those who are 'trying to get away with it in general', then Liberté and Égalité are gone, with Fraternité not likely to be far after...

    I don't think the law will be used to lock up kids in Halloween masks on the one day of the year they wear them, nor skiers in the alps wearing balaclavas, etc... That's not what it is there for, and the police as well as everyone else know this full well. I think Liberté, Égalité et Fraternité will do just fine.


  • #2779
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Banbh wrote: »
    It's the 20th/21st century view that worries me - intolerance, bigotry and, in the countries where its writ runs, barbarism.
    I think it's a little closed-minded to suggest the majority of 20th/21st century muslims are inclined to intolerance, bigotry and barbarism. There are certainly some, but there are plenty who aren't.
    kylith wrote: »
    I would assume that the difference is that people in costume would remove their facial coverings when requested by police, but those covering their faces for cultural reasons would be loathe to do so.
    I didn't get the impression that the law was that facial coverings in public places should be removed when requested by police; only that facial coverings were banned in public places? Rendering whether people will remove them on request rather a moot point I'd say.
    smacl wrote: »
    Don't get me wrong, I have no time for extreme forms of Christianity either, but so for as I'm aware there aren't so many Christian jurisdictions out there stoning female rape victims who are often just children, jailing people for apostasy, etc... Note we're not talking about individuals here, we're talking about governments of large and sometimes quite wealthy countries.
    I don't think any of them are women who live in France and want to wear face coverings though, are they? And I don't see why these French citizens should be punished for the acts of other governments?
    smacl wrote: »
    The expression in question is very specific in that it treats women as unequal to men. I think it is perfectly reasonable to suppress that expression, regardless of whether some of the women involved are happy with it.
    Actually, men are subject to more clothing restrictions than women in Islam; so one point of view is that whilst women are treated unequally, it is because they are favored over men in this regard. These are points of view, and it demonstrates the fallacy of suppressing someone else's freedom of expression to suit your own point of view. I would suggest the only relevant point of view is that of the person choosing what to wear; if they don't feel oppressed then they don't need legislation to oppress them.
    smacl wrote: »
    I don't think the law will be used to lock up kids in Halloween masks on the one day of the year they wear them, nor skiers in the alps wearing balaclavas, etc... That's not what it is there for, and the police as well as everyone else know this full well. I think Liberté, Égalité et Fraternité will do just fine.
    So if the law is intended be applied unequally, and the police as well as everyone else know this full well, then it is simply there for the purpose of oppressing a minority.


  • #2780
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,951 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    Actually, men are subject to more clothing restrictions than women in Islam; so one point of view is that whilst women are treated unequally, it is because they are favored over men in this regard.

    You'll need some references there. I've spent enough time in Islamic countries, and with clothing and just about everything else (education, driving, choice of career, interaction with foreigners of the opposite gender), women are regularly more restricted than men. This varies hugely by country, but in many gender inequality is very pronounced.
    These are points of view, and it demonstrates the fallacy of suppressing someone else's freedom of expression to suit your own point of view. I would suggest the only relevant point of view is that of the person choosing what to wear; if they don't feel oppressed then they don't need legislation to oppress them.

    Rubbish. If something is symbolic of oppression to the larger part of society, to the extent that society finds it unacceptable, it goes beyond a matter of individual preference.
    So if the law is intended be applied unequally, and the police as well as everyone else know this full well, then it is simply there for the purpose of oppressing a minority.

    Yes and no. The ECHR, as per robindch's post the law has specific objectives which to my mind seem quite reasonable, e.g.
    ECHR wrote:
    "The Court was also able to understand the view that individuals might not wish to see, in places open to all, practices or attitudes which would fundamentally call into question the possibility of open interpersonal relationships, which, by virtue of an established consensus, formed an indispensable element of community life within the society in question."


  • #2781
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    smacl wrote: »
    You'll need some references there. I've spent enough time in Islamic countries, and with clothing and just about everything else (education, driving, choice of career, interaction with foreigners of the opposite gender), women are regularly more restricted than men. This varies hugely by country, but in many gender inequality is very pronounced.
    Sure; a short english version stipulates 7 requirements for women, and the same seven plus one for men Islamic dress, though the way it was initially put to me was that there are more verses in the qur'an dealing with male dress than female dress, which is something I don't have a reference for. I don't doubt for a moment that gender inequality is pronounced in many Islamic countries, I only doubt that such legislation serves to redress that balance in France (and the ECHR agrees).
    smacl wrote: »
    Rubbish. If something is symbolic of oppression to the larger part of society, to the extent that society finds it unacceptable, it goes beyond a matter of individual preference.
    Firstly; 'society' didn't vote on this, there was no mandate, no referendum, saying society finds the wearing of a face covering to be symbolic of oppression and worthy of legislating against.
    Secondly, the law wasn't passed, or approved by the ECHR, to combat symbolic oppression, it was ostensibly for the preservation of the conditions
    of “living together”, where the covering of the face could undermine respect for the minimum requirements of life in society, to wit, breaching the rights of others to live in a space of socialisation which made living together easier. Wearing a clown mask is not symbolic of oppression, but it does fall foul of this law.
    smacl wrote: »
    Yes and no.
    That's all the equivocation it takes to be oppressive.
    smacl wrote: »
    The ECHR, as per robindch's post the law has specific objectives which to my mind seem quite reasonable, e.g.
    It did, and on all the grounds provided by the French government for the legislation, the only one it found sustainable was the 'living together' grounds, on the basis that the country has a wide appreciation of margin due to varying conditions in other countries which mean there is no European consensus on the subject. The court rejected the grounds of public safety, and (significantly for your argument above) the grounds of gender equality and respect for human dignity presented by the French government.


  • Advertisement
  • #2782
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,951 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    Sure; a short english version stipulates 7 requirements for women, and the same seven plus one for men Islamic dress, though the way it was initially put to me was that there are more verses in the qur'an dealing with male dress than female dress, which is something I don't have a reference for. I don't doubt for a moment that gender inequality is pronounced in many Islamic countries, I only doubt that such legislation serves to redress that balance in France (and the ECHR agrees).

    Right, so the women must hide her entire body and face, with clothes loose enough not to show off her figure, and a man must cover his 'awrah (i.e. the area between his navel and knees) also with loose enough clothing so as not to make his privates obvious. Remind me again how this places more restrictions on men than women?
    Firstly; 'society' didn't vote on this, there was no mandate, no referendum, saying society finds the wearing of a face covering to be symbolic of oppression and worthy of legislating against.

    The French government are democratically elected and have a mandate from the people to make decisions on behalf of their society. I would doubt a referendum, as took place in Switzerland, would have provided different results.
    Secondly, the law wasn't passed, or approved by the ECHR, to combat symbolic oppression, it was ostensibly for the preservation of the conditions of “living together”, where the covering of the face could undermine respect for the minimum requirements of life in society, to wit, breaching the rights of others to live in a space of socialisation which made living together easier. Wearing a clown mask is not symbolic of oppression, but it does fall foul of this law.

    If covering the face undermines respect for the minimum requirements of life in society it is oppressive to society. Not necessarily to the burqa wearer, but to other members of society. I have repeatedly pointed out in this thread that I don't for a moment believe that burqa bans are put in place primarily to help women who wear burqas.
    That's all the equivocation it takes to be oppressive.

    I don't doubt that the burqa ban will be oppressive to some, but fully believe that it will remove oppression for very many more.
    It did, and on all the grounds provided by the French government for the legislation, the only one it found sustainable was the 'living together' grounds, on the basis that the country has a wide appreciation of margin due to varying conditions in other countries which mean there is no European consensus on the subject. The court rejected the grounds of public safety, and (significantly for your argument above) the grounds of gender equality and respect for human dignity presented by the French government.

    No doubt because the law wasn't brought into place for those reasons in the first instance. Again, as I've stated repeatedly, I believe the law and the ban in many ways are quite cynical, but at the same time achieve very worthwhile goals.


  • #2783
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    smacl wrote: »
    Right, so the women must hide her entire body and face, with clothes loose enough not to show off her figure, and a man must cover his 'awrah (i.e. the area between his navel and knees) also with loose enough clothing so as not to make his privates obvious. Remind me again how this places more restrictions on men than women?
    Well, there are seven restrictions on women, and eight restrictions on men. Eight is more than seven, therefore there are more restrictions on men than women.
    smacl wrote: »
    The French government are democratically elected and have a mandate from the people to make decisions on behalf of their society.
    That's true, however, no one was elected with burka banning as an election plank; so there was no specific mandate from society to say that this was an issue requiring legislation.
    smacl wrote: »
    I would doubt a referendum, as took place in Switzerland, would have provided different results.
    Any referendum would have shown what people wanted, whether it was yes or no, which is a different result from telling people what they're getting.
    smacl wrote: »
    If covering the face undermines respect for the minimum requirements of life in society it is oppressive to society.
    How exactly? Undermining social interaction does not necessarily oppress anyone (unlike telling them what they may or may not wear), so I'm afraid your assertion needs some justification.
    smacl wrote: »
    I don't doubt that the burqa ban will be oppressive to some, but fully believe that it will remove oppression for very many more.
    Well, since it has been in place since 2011, can you demonstrate that it has removed oppression from anyone so far?
    smacl wrote: »
    No doubt because the law wasn't brought into place for those reasons in the first instance.
    Those are the reasons the French government gave the ECHR for bringing in the legislation. Are you saying they lied about their motivation to the ECHR? If so, it suggests rather strongly that they were aware that their true motivation was one that would not stand up to international scrutiny.
    smacl wrote: »
    Again, as I've stated repeatedly, I believe the law and the ban in many ways are quite cynical, but at the same time achieve very worthwhile goals.
    Well then, given that the legislation has been in place since 2011, what worthwhile goals can be demonstrated to have been achieved since then?


  • #2784
    kiffer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    I'm religious and support the ban
    8 is more than 7.

    But consider this:
    Imagine a society made up of reds and blues.
    Reds must wear red, Blues must wear blue.
    Reds must eat 100g of popcorn at leat once a week.
    Blues must work for no pay in the mine for at least 6 hours a week.
    Red must not go out at night.
    Blues must not go out at night
    Reds must pay 10% tax
    Blues must pay 15% tax
    Reds must not set fire to live goats.
    no one is allowed to kill or steal, and so on...

    There are more rules in which Red is specifically forbidden or required to do things than there are for Blue but also blue clearly has the raw deal.

    6 hours of labour and a higher tax rate is clearly worse than having to eat popcorn...
    There are more restrictions on Red, but Blue is clearly more restricted


  • #2785
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,951 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    Well then, given that the legislation has been in place since 2011, what worthwhile goals can be demonstrated to have been achieved since then?

    That French society has rejected a practice that it considers socially unacceptable is clearly worthwhile. France is a strongly secular society, and not allowing its secularist ideals to be trampled on by what many consider to be oppressive religious tradition is clearly worthwhile in that context. Personally, I find this particularly reasonable when dealing with a religion that is notably intolerant of other world-views and personal freedoms in societies that it dominates. Interesting article here on Islam vs. Secularism from an Islamic perspective, which strongly suggests the two are incompatible. Secularism within Islam is certainly a hot debate, but Islamism that rejects secularism seems to be making a strong resurgence. My feeling is that a large part of this ban is about France protecting its secularist ideals.

    I tend to agree that for a matter such as the burqa ban a referendum would be worthwhile, though I very much doubt it would change the outcome.


  • #2786
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    kiffer wrote: »
    8 is <..> more restricted
    I'm glad I said that men are subject to more clothing restrictions than women in Islam then, but if I'd said men are more restricted you'd have an interesting point.


  • #2787
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    smacl wrote: »
    That French society has rejected a practice that it considers socially unacceptable is clearly worthwhile.
    So you're saying that banning the burka had achieved the worthwhile goal of banning the burka. Tautoligies aside, you did say worthwhile goals. Were the others as self-fulfilling?
    smacl wrote: »
    France is a strongly secular society, and not allowing its secularist ideals to be trampled on by what many consider to be oppressive religious tradition is clearly worthwhile in that context.
    Yes, I can see how those hundreds of women waering veils were trampling on the secular ideals of the millions not wearing veils. Actually, I can't. Is not wearing a veil a secular ideal? Is engaging in social interaction whilst being able to see anothers face a secular ideal? Not that I've ever heard of. Which secular ideals were being trampled on exactly?
    smacl wrote: »
    Personally, I find this particularly reasonable when dealing with a religion that is notably intolerant of other world-views and personal freedoms in societies that it dominates. Interesting article here on Islam vs. Secularism from an Islamic perspective, which strongly suggests the two are incompatible.
    Tit for tat, however, is supposed to stop being a compelling argument once we stop being children. Intolerance in Islamic countries should not beget intolerance in secular countries; it's childish.
    smacl wrote: »
    I tend to agree that for a matter such as the burqa ban a referendum would be worthwhile, though I very much doubt it would change the outcome.
    I'd be surprised (and saddened) if it didn't.


  • #2788
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,951 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    So you're saying that banning the burka had achieved the worthwhile goal of banning the burka. Tautoligies aside, you did say worthwhile goals. Were the others as self-fulfilling?

    You could say exactly the same of any legislation that restricts any socially unacceptable behaviour. If you re-read this thread, you will notice that a majority of the posters here find wearing the burqa in western society to be socially unacceptable. Restricting socially unacceptable behaviour improves society and hence is worthwhile.
    Yes, I can see how those hundreds of women waering veils were trampling on the secular ideals of the millions not wearing veils. Actually, I can't. Is not wearing a veil a secular ideal? Is engaging in social interaction whilst being able to see anothers face a secular ideal? Not that I've ever heard of. Which secular ideals were being trampled on exactly?
    Tit for tat, however, is supposed to stop being a compelling argument once we stop being children.

    The secular ideal with respect to the burqa is to restrict religious practice in public places that society finds unacceptable. I suspect the broader message is that to participate in a secular multi-cultural society requires an element of compromise, and you cannot impose the rules of your belief system regardless of the expectations of the rest of that society.
    Intolerance in Islamic countries should not beget intolerance in secular countries; it's childish.

    I don't think it is childish at all to be openly intolerant of behaviour we, as a society, find unacceptable. Context is also clearly important here. If Islam was broadly accepted as a tradition of great tolerance, promotion of gender equality, and pluralism, I think it would in turn be treated with more tolerance.
    I'd be surprised (and saddened) if it didn't.

    The only place in Europe that I'm aware of that has had a referendum on this issue upheld the ban. Difficult to speculate beyond that.


  • #2789
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    smacl wrote: »
    You could say exactly the same of any legislation that restricts any socially unacceptable behavior.
    Perhaps you could, if you'd like to provide an example? It seems to me that most legislation that restricts socially unacceptable behavior is based on how that behavior affects others, and its' efficacy can be judged on the reduction of effect on others. I find it unlikely that anyone can demonstrate how the lives of people who didn't wear a burka have changed for the better since the ban came in.
    smacl wrote: »
    If you re-read this thread, you will notice that a majority of the posters here find wearing the burqa in western society to be socially unacceptable.
    I noticed the majority of posters found the burka offensive because t hey felt it was symbolic of female of opprssion (to them). I didn't notice any argument that it had an effect on wider society?
    smacl wrote: »
    Restricting socially unacceptable behaviour improves society and hence is worthwhile.
    So, can you demonstrate how French society has improved as a result of restricting this socially unacceptable behavior since 2011?
    smacl wrote: »
    The secular ideal with respect to the burqa is to restrict religious practice in public places that society finds unacceptable.
    When did that become a secular ideal? I've certainly never heard of it before. I think the right to be free from the imposition by government of religious practices upon its people is a secular ideal, and I imagine that the obverse, the right to be free from the imposition by government of irreligious practices upon its people should follow.
    smacl wrote: »
    I suspect the broader message is that to participate in a secular multi-cultural society requires an element of compromise, and you cannot impose the rules of your belief system regardless of the expectations of the rest of that society.
    That would be exactly my point; Muslim women are not forcing anyone else to wear Burkas in France, so why are others permitted to impose the rules of their belief system on Muslim women, and prevent them from wearing what they wish?
    smacl wrote: »
    I don't think it is childish at all to be openly intolerant of behaviour we, as a society, find unacceptable.
    Would you like to re-read that sentence? You don't think it's childish to be mean about things you don't like?
    smacl wrote: »
    Context is also clearly important here. If Islam was broadly accepted as a tradition of great tolerance, promotion of gender equality, and pluralism, I think it would in turn be treated with more tolerance.
    Again, tit for tat is a childish argument.
    smacl wrote: »
    The only place in Europe that I'm aware of that has had a referendum on this issue upheld the ban. Difficult to speculate beyond that.
    I'm not sure the canton of Ticino is terribly representative of Europe as a whole. I certainly hope not.


  • #2790
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,951 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    Perhaps you could, if you'd like to provide an example?

    Public nudity.
    I didn't notice any argument that it had an effect on wider society?

    Perhaps you should re-read the thread so. e.g. posts 4, 6,7, 9, 29, 32, etc... For me, one of the more telling posts was this one;
    Dades wrote: »
    I don't think a ban is "right" per se, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't happy with some unnecessary measure that stems Islamification.

    There. I've said it.

    which I'd guess sums up much of the underlying sentiment surrounding this issue.
    I'm not sure the canton of Ticino is terribly representative of Europe as a whole. I certainly hope not.

    Possibly not. How about the good people who frequent this forum who voted 619 to 358 in favour of the ban. Interestingly, from this thread the same group of people would appear to be predominantly left leaning liberals.


  • Advertisement
  • #2791
    kiffer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    I'm glad I said that men are subject to more clothing restrictions than women in Islam then, but if I'd said men are more restricted you'd have an interesting point.

    There is clearly a difference in the quality of restrictions though. Being required to eat popcorn and not burn live goats are hardly restrictions at all... Numerically more isn't automatically worse...


Advertisement