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…9293959798…138

Comments

  • #2822
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,950 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    If a woman is in a situation where some man makes her personal choices for her, removing his ability to make this particular personal choice on these particular terms does nothing to alter the power dynamic between them. Banning burqas might serve to conceal the underlying problem, but it won't do much to fix it.

    That doesn't seem to concur with what I've read, for example;
    Young women in the suburbs were being told what not to wear (jeans, anything feminine) and what not to do (have a boyfriend, wear makeup, go out, have sex). Transgression brought severe penalties. Several months before Benziane's murder, a book by another young beurette, Samira Bellil, revealed how she had been gang-raped, and how it had become so common in the suburbs that it was known simply as a tournante, or pass-round. By now, young suburban men said - and believed - "that all women are whores except my mother".
    '
    '
    '
    With all this fiery talk, Amara has her critics. NPNS has been accused of stigmatising young men in the ghettos, suggesting they're all just little thugs or gang-rapists. "That was true in 2003 and 2004," she admits. "But since then, with the help of the respect guide, more and more young men from the cités come to us." Despite its niche background, NPNS has, she says, evolved. "When we started, I talked about what I knew, the neighbourhoods. But during the first march, we had women from comfortable backgrounds telling us their stories of violence. I understood it was happening everywhere." NPNS now has committees in various European countries, as well as Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, "because we are fighting the rise of fundamentalism on all sides. And the first victims of fundamentalism are women. I don't care if it's Islamic fundamentalism or American evangelism. A fascist is a fascist."

    While I don't doubt there are islamophobes latching on to this to persue their own agenda, the stark fact is there has been a lot of violence against Muslim women across France for not conforming to the certain Islamic dress requirements or expected cultural norms. As such, I think it is a mistake to suggest that the burqa ban has not had a positive effect for many Muslim women.

    Has it occurred to you that perhaps defending the right to religious expression in this case is providing a shelter to those wishing to preserve a status quo that perpetuates this violence?


  • #2823
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    smacl wrote: »
    Fadela Amara certainly rose to prominence as a Muslim activist and feminist who was vocally in favour of the ban. Note we're also talking about a socialist here, who is one of the most active politicians involved in defending Muslim women's rights in French ghettos. They're not all right wing nut jobs.
    Ah now... she rose to prominence (and was elected) long before the ban. I think it's very fair to say she wasn't elected on a ban the burka plank.
    smacl wrote: »
    What if she wears it through peer pressure which forms part of an oppressive mechanism used to keep her in her place? From my understanding, this is certainly quite commonly the case.
    From my understanding, it's certainly quite commonly claimed to be the case. And it should be addressed. Just not by preventing who freely choose to wear the veil from doing so (and I know, Fadela Amara claims such people don't exist, even when they stand up in front of her), but by removing the oppressive mechanism that 'keeps her in her place'. I know, that's much more difficult than banning people from looking different, it requires thought, an understanding of others, investment and care, but I think in the long run it's probably more worthwhile.
    smacl wrote: »
    That doesn't seem to concur with what I've read, for example;
    While I don't doubt there are islamophobes latching on to this to persue their own agenda, the stark fact is there has been a lot of violence against Muslim women across France for not conforming to the certain Islamic dress requirements or expected cultural norms. As such, I think it is a mistake to suggest that the burqa ban has not had a positive effect for many Muslim women.
    Has it occurred to you that perhaps defending the right to religious expression in this case is providing a shelter to those wishing to preserve a status quo that perpetuates this violence?
    It doesn't seem like she's crediting the burka ban with a change of heart in French muslim youths here, rather it seems she's attributing it to educational outreach; teaching them about sex, love an boundaries. A philosophy I would agree has a part to play.


  • #2824
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,950 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    Ah now... she rose to prominence (and was elected) long before the ban. I think it's very fair to say she wasn't elected on a ban the burka plank.

    True, but she's been very vocal about the issue long before the ban came into being. The point is though that here you have a left wing female Muslim feminist politician supporting the ban, on the basis that doing so helps Muslim women in deprived conditions.
    From my understanding, it's certainly quite commonly claimed to be the case. And it should be addressed. Just not by preventing who freely choose to wear the veil from doing so (and I know, Fadela Amara claims such people don't exist, even when they stand up in front of her), but by removing the oppressive mechanism that 'keeps her in her place'. I know, that's much more difficult than banning people from looking different, it requires thought, an understanding of others, investment and care, but I think in the long run it's probably more worthwhile.

    That's why I've been clear to point out throughout this thread that there are valid arguments on both sides, not to mention quite a few dubious ones. Having read both sides though, I still feel that dispensing with the burqa is a pretty minor concession to make given the level of anxiety it seems to generate.


  • #2825
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    smacl wrote: »
    The point is though that here you have a left wing female Muslim feminist politician supporting the ban, on the basis that doing so helps Muslim women in deprived conditions.
    Actually, the point was that the burqa was a way for French politicians to look like they were heeding and addressing voters concerns by 'dealing' with immigrants and taking a hard line to preserve French 'values', without expending money or effort on dealing with real issues like unemployment, or cultural integration, to which you replied that French politicians had a mandate from the people who have a real issue with the spread of more extreme forms of Islam in their country.
    Left wing female Muslim feminist politicians no more got elected on a ban the burka plank than right wing male Christian misogynist politicians. Fadela Amara hasn't claimed she supports the ban because she has a mandate from the people; she has clearly said she supports it above all because of her own socialist/anti fascist ideals.
    smacl wrote: »
    That's why I've been clear to point out throughout this thread that there are valid arguments on both sides, not to mention quite a few dubious ones. Having read both sides though, I still feel that dispensing with the burqa is a pretty minor concession to make given the level of anxiety it seems to generate.
    I'd certainly agree that for muslim women to choose to dispense with the burqa would be a step towards secularism, and arguably a step towards a more enlightened society as a whole. However, any concession of personal beliefs to satisfy the mores of others, especially when it brings no demonstrable social benefit, should be strenuously challenged when it trades personal freedom for the appearance of social harmony.


  • #2826
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,674 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    smacl wrote: »
    That doesn't seem to concur with what I've read, for example;



    While I don't doubt there are islamophobes latching on to this to persue their own agenda, the stark fact is there has been a lot of violence against Muslim women across France for not conforming to the certain Islamic dress requirements or expected cultural norms. As such, I think it is a mistake to suggest that the burqa ban has not had a positive effect for many Muslim women.
    Well, I'd be open to evidence that it has, but I await any actual evidence. Your cite doesn't mention the burqa ban at all. And, if I'm honest, while I say I am open to evidence and would try to be as open as possible, it would be a sceptical openness. Having women told how to dress by one set of men instead of another doesn't look empowering to me; it just looks like imposing a different conformity.
    smacl wrote: »
    Has it occurred to you that perhaps defending the right to religious expression in this case is providing a shelter to those wishing to preserve a status quo that perpetuates this violence?
    Two thoughts:

    First, that cuts both ways. Has it occurred to you that defending the burqa ban in this case is providing a shelter to those wishing to preserve an assertion of dominant western values that is systematically violent?

    Secondly, just to be clear, I don't see this as an issue of "defending the right to religious expression". Someone's tastes about how they present themselves in public, and what is an appropriate degree of privacy or modesty, may be influenced by religious considerations, but whether they are or not this falls fairly squarely into the domain of things protected by the right to individual dignity and personal autonomy. A woman gets to deside what to wear not because it's a religious matter, but simply because she's a grown woman, and entitled to be respected as such.


  • Advertisement
  • #2827
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,950 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Well, I'd be open to evidence that it has, but I await any actual evidence. Your cite doesn't mention the burqa ban at all.

    No, it mentions extreme persecution of Muslim women, extending to gang rape and even murder, for adopting western clothing and behaviour. Amara and others also talk the burqa being used as a tool within this persecution.
    And, if I'm honest, while I say I am open to evidence and would try to be as open as possible, it would be a sceptical openness. Having women told how to dress by one set of men instead of another doesn't look empowering to me; it just looks like imposing a different conformity.

    Taking one particular garment off the extensive list of what is allowable is not telling a woman what to wear. At the same time, if you have a group of women who are victims of habitual violence, clothing that serves to make them largely anonymous is clearly not their best interests.
    First, that cuts both ways. Has it occurred to you that defending the burqa ban in this case is providing a shelter to those wishing to preserve an assertion of dominant western values that is systematically violent?

    I don't think so. Perhaps you can provide an illustrative example for this? Certainly I can see the argument for it being used to maintain local cultural values, but I don't see how this directly links to systematic violence as is the case with the plight of Muslim women as per Amara.
    Secondly, just to be clear, I don't see this as an issue of "defending the right to religious expression". Someone's tastes about how they present themselves in public, and what is an appropriate degree of privacy or modesty, may be influenced by religious considerations, but whether they are or not this falls fairly squarely into the domain of things protected by the right to individual dignity and personal autonomy. A woman gets to deside what to wear not because it's a religious matter, but simply because she's a grown woman, and entitled to be respected as such.

    My take on the burqa ban is that it is a stand taken against the perceived spread of more extreme expressions of Islam in France and Belgium, and as such is entirely about restriction of a certain form of religious expression. I think we've moved on from the 'it is just an article of clothing' quite some time back in this thread.


  • #2828
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,950 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Slightly off topic, but rather interesting piece yesterday from Queen Rania of Jordan about extremism in Islam, how it has affected the broader perception of Islam, and the necessity to develop the religion before the extremists dismantle it.

    My feeling is that the Islamophobia discussed in this thread is very specifically fear and distrust of the more extreme expressions of Islam which actually represents a tiny proportion of western Muslims.


  • #2829
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    smacl wrote: »
    Taking one particular garment off the extensive list of what is allowable is not telling a woman what to wear.
    It certainly seems like it is. You're saying you may not wear this, so you can only wear these... how is it not telling them what to wear?
    smacl wrote: »
    My take on the burqa ban is that it is a stand taken against the perceived spread of more extreme expressions of Islam in France and Belgium, and as such is entirely about restriction of a certain form of religious expression. I think we've moved on from the 'it is just an article of clothing' quite some time back in this thread.
    The fact that it's not just an article of clothing doesn't mean that it's not an article of clothing. Taking a stand against a perceived spread of extremism is a dubious activity at best, but when it interferes with someones actual freedom to choose how they dress, it becomes an oppression.


  • #2830
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,674 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I’m not inclined to agree, smacl, that things like the burqa ban are motivated by “fear and distrust of the more extreme expressions of Islam”. For some people - present company included - they may be, but there is plenty of general, broad-based islamophobia and racism out there, and general islamophobes and racists will naturally support a burqa ban. When I say that the burqa ban provides shelter to those wishing to preserve an assertion of dominant western values that is systematically violent, this is what I am thinking of. One of the problems for the more thoughtful supporters of such a ban are, basically, they are togging out on the same team as some pretty unsavoury neo-Nazis and xenophobes, and when you find yourself in that position I think it always behoves you to examine your case very carefully.

    In my own experience I know of hijab-wearing women who constantly have imposed on them an expectation that the kind of woman who wears a hijab will be meek, deferential, passive and unopinionated. And when they fail to conform to that expectation and prove articulate, assertive and even demanding of attention and respect, they experience resentment, hostility and criticism for failing to conform to a stereotype that they do not like, do not share and had no part in creating. Their experience is that the principal oppression they encounter in connection with the hijab is not pressure from their family or community to wear it, but pressure from the wider community to conform to largely uninformed expectations of how a hijab-wearing woman should act.

    I am not saying that this is the experience of every woman who wears the hijab. Still less am I saying that no burqa-wearing woman is the victim of oppression within her own community. But I do start from the assumption that illiberal legislation - and, yes, this is profoundly illiberal legislation, effectively stereotyping all burqa-wearers as people with no agency of their own - needs a compelling justification. How much of our perceptions about the burqa reflect our own preconceptions, as opposed to the experiences and choices of those who wear the burqa? If we find that some women who wear the burqa have been compelled to do so, are we justified in treating all women who wear the burqa as people with no agency in the matter? And would we accept that kind of generalisation if the people concerned were part of the cultural and ethnic mainstream?

    A racist will be unbothered by these concerns - they are in fact part of the attraction of a burqa ban for him - but any liberal defending a burqa ban needs to give them some thought, I think.


  • #2831
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,950 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Absolam wrote: »
    It certainly seems like it is. You're saying you may not wear this, so you can only wear these... how is it not telling them what to wear?

    Hardly. If I tell you to pick any number between one and one thousand, except for the number seventeen, am I telling you which number to pick?
    The fact that it's not just an article of clothing doesn't mean that it's not an article of clothing. Taking a stand against a perceived spread of extremism is a dubious activity at best, but when it interferes with someones actual freedom to choose how they dress, it becomes an oppression.

    But if you give any credence to the likes of Fadala Amara, who states quite categorically that the same garment is regularly used as a tool to persecute women in other contexts, does it not make sense to remove that tool? Surely any right thinking women would happily ditch said garment if she was aware that by continuing to wear it she was placing other women in harms way?


  • Advertisement
  • #2832
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,950 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    A racist will be unbothered by these concerns - they are in fact part of the attraction of a burqa ban for him

    You're doing quite a bit of stereotyping of your own there; labelling those in favour of the burqa ban as male racists.
    Any liberal defending a burqa ban needs to give them some thought, I think.

    I would consider that I've given this quite a bit of thought, linking articles from both sides of the argument, ranging from Amnesty, through Ghent human rights centre, Fadala Amara, and WISE. My conclusion is that in this instance, liberalism and egalitarianism come into conflict over this issue, and for me at least, liberalism should take the back seat.

    Much opinion on this thread seems highly polarised, where I've been variously called out as stupid, offensive or silly for examining either side of the discussion. I'm not convinced that the larger part of the French or Belgian population are racists or neo-nazis even though the recent recession has led to a swing to the right. Nor for that matter do I believe that the majority are Islamophopes beyond the media depictions of ISIL and Boko Haram. Nor have I reason to suspect that commentary by Fadala Amara, Samira Bellil, or other female Muslim activists that the burqa is used as a tool of persecution.

    Your opinion clearly differs, but then that's what makes for a decent debate.


  • #2833
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,815 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    The rights of others to live in a social space trumps your freedom of expression to cover your face.

    This is the only point that stands up to scrutiny that has been made in favour of banning the burka in the entire thread IMO.

    It is also the point that wins the argument to my mind at this stage.


  • #2834
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I'm religious and support the ban
    smacl wrote: »
    Hardly. If I tell you to pick any number between one and one thousand, except for the number seventeen, am I telling you which number to pick?
    Well, you're telling me there's a number I can't pick, so I can only pick the ones you've chosen for me. So, yes, you are. How many numbers to either side may give the impression of a degree of freedom, but the fact is you made the choice for me before I even got involved.
    smacl wrote: »
    But if you give any credence to the likes of Fadala Amara, who states quite categorically that the same garment is regularly used as a tool to persecute women in other contexts, does it not make sense to remove that tool? Surely any right thinking women would happily ditch said garment if she was aware that by continuing to wear it she was placing other women in harms way?
    Well, I give her a great deal of credence, but I don't suggest she should dictate my opinion (or the choices of others) just because I respect her achievements, or agree with some of what she says. Amara has been clear about her primary reasons for supporting a burka ban (her socialist/anti fascist ideals), and she has been equally clear about what she feels has helped reduce oppression of women in muslim banlieus (educational outreach).
    The idea that her feeling the burka is used as a tool to persecute women in other contexts does not justify persecuting burka wearing women in this context.
    Feeling the need to apply the pressure of a 'surely any right thinking' argument makes me even more suspicious of the justification. Perhaps, instead of focussing on oppressing the women who choose to wear burkas to prevent other women being harmed by those incited(?) by it, we should focus on those who are choosing to harm women? It would seem a more direct approach, and one which Amara also supports.


  • #2835
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,674 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    smacl wrote: »
    You're doing quite a bit of stereotyping of your own there; labelling those in favour of the burqa ban as male racists.
    No, no. I've been at pains to say that's not the case.

    What I'm saying is that male racists (indeed, not just male racists) will support a burqa ban, and it's obvious why they would. Which means that those supporting a burqa ban for other reasons will find themselves standing shoulder to shoulder with some unsavoury company, supporting a policy with obvious racist appeal and which deprives members of a marginalised group of personal autonomy. That calls for very careful scrutiny.
    smacl wrote: »
    I would consider that I've given this quite a bit of thought, linking articles from both sides of the argument, ranging from Amnesty, through Ghent human rights centre, Fadala Amara, and WISE. My conclusion is that in this instance, liberalism and egalitarianism come into conflict over this issue, and for me at least, liberalism should take the back seat.
    In the spirity of a mutual respect-fest, smacl, I entirely accept your good faith and the sincerity of your conclusion. I just don't share it. This is possibly partly down to the fact that you and I disagree as to the relative value to be attached to liberty and equality.

    But only partly. It's also the case that I'm not persuaded that banning the externally visible consequences of inequality does in fact promote equality - it may simply make it easier for us to overlook inequality. I'm also not persuaded that you aren't simply imposing a different inequality by asserting the right to control how other people dress.

    And I would point out that I came into this debate in response to a suggestion that banning the burqa in the classroom was a strategy for promoting the value of tolerance. Whatever other good things - such as egalitarianism - it might promote, it certainly does not promote tolerance, and it requires a fair degree of orwellian doublethink to say with a straight face that it does.


  • #2836
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    smacl wrote: »
    My feeling is that the Islamophobia discussed in this thread is very specifically fear and distrust of the more extreme expressions of Islam which actually represents a tiny proportion of western Muslims.

    It's more of a case of taking the more extremist positions, and bad deeds done by evil people who happen to be muslim (not because their religion demands it), and conflating them with the whole population, mixing in a number of scurrilous lies (the same as the whole blood libel and eating babies lies told about European Jews for most of the last 1500 years) and pasting this tissue on the whole population.

    This has been done many times in many cultures with respects to outsiders of that culture. I can think of the conflating of all Irish with various nasty stereotypes over the years, from drunken and slovenly laziness to universal membership of terrorist groups for example.


  • #2837
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    A bespectacled Saudi historian justifies the country's ban on women driving by explaining that western women don't mind if they're raped and suggests that it doesn't happen when women ride camels:

    http://globalvoicesonline.org/2015/04/02/western-women-dont-care-if-they-are-raped-on-the-roadside-says-a-historian-from-saudi-arabia/
    Global Voices wrote:
    Saudi historian Dr Saleh Al-Saadoon says women in the West drive because they “don't care if they get raped on the roadside.” He made the remarks in an interview with Rotana Khalijia, a Saudi-owned television channel aimed at Gulf countries, in his defense of a Saudi prohibition that bans women from driving. The video, which created an outcry online, was shared far and wide on YouTube.

    Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that bans women from driving cars. There have been many efforts to break the ban, most recently on October 26, 2013, when dozens of women shared videos driving cars in the day they plan on defying the ban.

    The Saudi “historian” notes that:
    Saudi Historian wrote:
    Unlike riding a camel, driving a car places a woman in danger of being raped, which for Saudi women is a much worse experience than for any women in the western world where women “don't care” if they are raped.

    To make his interview worse, he suggested a solution to import “foreign female drivers” to drive Saudi women to prevent a potential rape by contracted male drivers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wx0CqatDY0


  • #2838
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Masih Alinejad is an Iranian journalist and advocate for religious freedom and women’s rights. She runs a facebook page with around 800k followers called 'My Stealthy Freedom' and members are posting photos of themselves without head-coverings in protest at the law preventing them from doing so:

    https://www.facebook.com/StealthyFreedom

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/alivelez/brave-iranian-women-are-showing-off-their-hair-in-protest

    That last page, btw, claiming that last year, over 3.5 million women in Iran were "warned, fined, or arrested by the morality police for inappropriate dress" - around 10% of the female population.


  • #2839
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Masih Alinejad is an Iranian journalist and advocate for religious freedom and women’s rights. She runs a facebook page with around 800k followers called 'My Stealthy Freedom' and members are posting photos of themselves without head-coverings in protest at the law preventing them from doing so:

    https://www.facebook.com/StealthyFreedom

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/alivelez/brave-iranian-women-are-showing-off-their-hair-in-protest

    That last page, btw, claiming that last year, over 3.5 million women in Iran were "warned, fined, or arrested by the morality police for inappropriate dress" - around 10% of the female population.
    So what. They choose to wear it.

    MrP


  • #2840
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,556 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    I'm religious and support the ban
    MrPudding wrote: »
    So what. They choose to wear it.
    It's mandatory (by law) for Muslims and non-Muslims in Iran, there is no choice involved.


  • #2841
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Frank Grimes wrote: »
    It's mandatory (by law) for Muslims and non-Muslims in Iran, there is no choice involved.
    One still has a choice. One can choose to ignore the law, therefore they have chosen to wear it.

    This is similar to woman that wear it where it is not legally mandatory. Whilst they don't have to wear it by law, there are other pressures applied, yet they are still considered to have chosen to wear it.

    You clearly did not get the memo, it is always the woman's choice.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #2842
    Banbh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭Banbh


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    One still has a choice. One can choose to ignore the law, therefore they have chosen to wear it.
    Very Jesuitical.


  • #2843
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Banbh wrote: »
    Very Jesuitical.
    Hey, it's not my argument.

    MrP


  • #2844
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Video - "My hijab has nothing to do with oppression. It's a feminist statement"

    Can't say that I agree with a anything this this lady has to say:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/jun/24/hijab-not-oppression-feminist-statement-video


  • #2845
    Tadeo Quiet Waste
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Tadeo Quiet Waste


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    Video - "My hijab has nothing to do with oppression. It's a feminist statement"

    Can't say that I agree with a anything this this lady has to say:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/jun/24/hijab-not-oppression-feminist-statement-video

    This statement is pretty agreeable no? :confused:

    1:35 in the video
    By assuming that all veiled women are oppressed, we belittle the choice of those that want to wear it

    Or this question @ 2:02
    If pressure to wear the hijab is seen as oppression, and rightly so, why is social pressure, or legal pressure to not wear it excused as female emancipation?

    I don't agree with plenty of what she says, but this disbelief that some people choose to wear a hijab is just a little odd no?


  • #2846
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Deleted User wrote: »
    [...] this disbelief that some people choose to wear a hijab is just a little odd no?
    I don't know anybody who claims that everybody, having made a fully informed and unencumbered choice, refuses to wear it - Ms Yusuf herself looks like she might have made such a choice herself. Her linked claim that seemingly "we" think that "all veiled women are oppressed" is simply false (who's "we"? it certainly doesn't include me). And the "belittling" conclusion imputes a rather insulting motivation, which Ms Yusef has no way of knowing.

    Still, none of those is actually the issue, as Ms Yusef is careful to avoid. For the majority of women, perhaps even the vast majority, wearing religious headgear is not optional - the choice to wear it frequently being neither free (direct or implied threat of direct or indirect violence or other sanction if it's not worn) nor unencumbered (many are likely to have had limited education or experience of cultures where the wearing is optional, rare or non-existent or have had a genuinely free debate on the topic).


  • #2847
    Tadeo Quiet Waste
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Tadeo Quiet Waste


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Yes, but you deny the person the right to choose to wear it if you ban the burka (thread topic & discussion at hand).

    You literally do exactly what she says in your second paragraph. Almost a word-for-word example of what she details. You don't seem to accept that any woman might choose to wear one, and suggest that in cases of those that do, there must be an underlying lack of education or experience prompting it.


  • #2848
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,950 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I'm religious and support the ban
    robindch wrote: »
    I don't know anybody who claims that everybody, having made a fully informed and unencumbered choice, refuses to wear it.

    Yet there are plenty of posters on here, yourself included, who would suggest that where a woman does choose to wear the burka, it is entirely as a result of indoctrination to the extent that a free choice hasn't been made, e.g.
    robindch wrote: »
    Because the choice to wear is never appears all that free, and it's certainly the frequent subject of coercion.

    My take on it is that the burka ban does impinge on some women's rights to dress as they would choose to in some instances, but I favour the ban because it leads to oppression that is an order of magnitude worse in many other instances.


  • #2849
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I don't agree with plenty of what she says, but this disbelief that some people choose to wear a hijab is just a little odd no?

    Is it not much more odd that the burka, which is claimed to be worn freely as a personal choice, seems to only be worn by women of a small and specific muslim subculture? One which is notoriously controlling of women?


  • #2850
    Tadeo Quiet Waste
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Tadeo Quiet Waste


    I'm religious and support the ban
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Is it not much more odd that the burka, which is claimed to be worn freely as a personal choice, seems to only be worn by women of a small and specific muslim subculture? One which is notoriously controlling of women?

    Do you doubt the sincerity of the woman in the video? She does mention several times that she totally and utterly agrees with the idea that forcibly 'requiring' people to wear the burka is oppressive and controlling. I agree wholeheartedly.

    However, she tells us that she herself has made the decision herself to wear the hijab. Do you doubt her ability to make that decision?

    That's the nub here for me.


  • Advertisement
  • #2851
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,827 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm non-religious and do not support the ban
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Do you doubt the sincerity of the woman in the video?

    She may believe what she is saying, but so do many battered women who say their husbands really love them, it was a one time thing, they deserved it really. Treat someone like a dog long enough and eventually they will bark.


Advertisement