Burka ban

smacl · 29-06-2015 08:55AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

Sorry.. I just can't see the similarity in the argument. That's not a rhetorical ploy; can you walk me through where you see the similarities in the two objections to legal restriction?

Sure. The vast majority of Americans who own guns are law abiding citizens who will never use their arms in such a way as to unreasonably harm others. However, the damage done by the small majority who do use their guns illegally is damaging enough to society to reasonably argue that the freedom of the law abiding majority should be compromised to limit the damage done by this minority.

Similarly, the majority of women who wear burqas in the west may not be victims of oppression as a direct result of wearing the garment, nor is the friction caused by them wearing it sufficient in most cases to lead to serious social unrest. However, the damage done in cases where wearing the burqa is a cause of serious harm is such that it seems reasonable to compromise the freedom of the many.

Peregrinus · 29-06-2015 08:58AM

looksee wrote: »

So likewise, their discomfort at being uncovered is their problem, not mine? Who's discomfort wins?

Theirs. It's their face, their body. You have no right to uncover it.

looksee wrote: »

How about not putting themselves in a situation (country) where they are socially required to show their face?

The question is not whether they are socially required to show their face, but whether they should be legally required to show their face.

I don't think you can make a credible justification for legal compulsion here on the basis that if they don't like it they can leave the country. Apply that argument to, say, the situation of gays in Russia and see how far it gets you!

smacl · 29-06-2015 09:15AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Peregrinus wrote: »

An employer can impose dress codes that infringe on freedom of expression if they are reasonably related to the requirements of the business, so if the grocery owner finds that customers are deterred from dealing with a salesperson whose face is covered, he can decline to employ someone in that position unless they are willing to uncover their face. That's already the law. That's not a "burka ban" of the kind being discussed in this thread, I think.

Perhaps, but all societies in varying degrees also impose dress codes which they consider reasonable for the society to function normally. In western societies we don't normally cover our faces when interacting socially, other than in exceptional circumstances. Nor do we restrict what is acceptable in terms of immodest exposure on a gender basis. (And before you retort with a bare chests versus boobs argument on the beach, I remind you men and women both have faces). Perhaps we have never had to codify certain dress codes into law, as it has never been a problem in the past. Once it becomes a problem, this changes.

What is or is not acceptable behaviour in any given society is clearly very fluid, and for many reasons wearing a burqa in many western societies is not currently acceptable. Some of these reasons may well be morally and ethically dubious, others would seem not.

looksee · 29-06-2015 09:35AM

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

Peregrinus wrote: »

Theirs. It's their face, their body. You have no right to uncover it.

The question is not whether they are socially required to show their face, but whether they should be legally required to show their face.

I don't think you can make a credible justification for legal compulsion here on the basis that if they don't like it they can leave the country. Apply that argument to, say, the situation of gays in Russia and see how far it gets you!

There is no comparison, as you well know. Wearing a burka is entirely a choice, being gay isn't. If you want to make comparisons, how about me choosing to go and live in Saudi Arabia and expecting to be able to drive, or wear shorts or live a western lifestyle - are you going to defend my 'right' to do so?

I am trying to make the point that the 'comfort' of the individual should be a two way thing. A Muslim woman may feel uncomfortable at having her face exposed, I feel uncomfortable at being surrounded by covered faces. There seems to be an assumption that her discomfort is more significant than my discomfort. If she feels uncomfortable then maybe choosing to live in a country where the societal norm is to have the face uncovered is not the best place for her to be? Or she (or her man) could compromise a bit on the choice they are making and have her face exposed.

silverharp · 29-06-2015 09:45AM

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps, but all societies in varying degrees also impose dress codes which they consider reasonable for the society to function normally. In western societies we don't normally cover our faces when interacting socially, other than in exceptional circumstances. Nor do we restrict what is acceptable in terms of immodest exposure on a gender basis. (And before you retort with a bare chests versus boobs argument on the beach, I remind you men and women both have faces). Perhaps we have never had to codify certain dress codes into law, as it has never been a problem in the past. Once it becomes a problem, this changes.

What is or is not acceptable behaviour in any given society is clearly very fluid, and for many reasons wearing a burqa in many western societies is not currently acceptable. Some of these reasons may well be morally and ethically dubious, others would seem not.

The competing ethic is freedom itself. Iran banned spikey haircuts and we would be very quick to call them fascists. Or what about young people with hoodies etc. If some uber conservatives came out with a dress code to stop structural employment and made it an offense to not look capable for work, there would be howls.

smacl · 29-06-2015 09:55AM

I'm religious and support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

The competing ethic is freedom itself. Iran banned spikey haircuts and we would be very quick to call them fascists. Or what about young people with hoodies etc. If some uber conservatives came out with a dress code to stop structural employment and made it an offense to not look capable for work, there would be howls.

If the kids wearing hoodies started walking around with their faces fully covered using masks or balaclavas do you doubt there would be uproar? In western society we don't typically hide our identity by covering our faces, other than for protection from the elements or at fancy dress parties. The other exception of course is to commit crime, which is why people are understandably nervous of those who seek to be anonymous in public places.

jackofalltrades · 29-06-2015 10:10AM

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

Peregrinus wrote: »

People who don't like to see two men, or two women, holding hands or kissing can solve the problem by closing their eyes.
People who don't like to converse with those wearing face coverings can solve the problem by not conversing with them, and by not putting themselves in situations where they are required to converse with them.

So stay in their own house basically.
It's impossible to know when and where you might have to deal with someone with a face covering.

Theirs. It's their face, their body. You have no right to uncover it.

There's no right to be able to cover your face in public.

silverharp wrote: »

The competing ethic is freedom itself. Iran banned spikey haircuts and we would be very quick to call them fascists. Or what about young people with hoodies etc.

Yes but the only reason for Iran banning "western hairstyles" is down to religious fascism.
Someone's hairstyle generally doesn't have to potential to impede communication with them or lead to people feeling isolated.
Where hoodies are banned, it's down to security reasons.

Absolam · 29-06-2015 10:11AM

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Sure. The vast majority of Americans who own guns are law abiding citizens who will never use their arms in such a way as to unreasonably harm others. However, the damage done by the small majority who do use their guns illegally is damaging enough to society to reasonably argue that the freedom of the law abiding majority should be compromised to limit the damage done by this minority.

I think that's not the argument the NRA use in America to defend the freedom to bear arm you said was similar to my argument to defend the freedom to wear burkas? More likely what they were arguing against

smacl wrote: »

Similarly, the majority of women who wear burqas in the west may not be victims of oppression as a direct result of wearing the garment, nor is the friction caused by them wearing it sufficient in most cases to lead to serious social unrest. However, the damage done in cases where wearing the burqa is a cause of serious harm is such that it seems reasonable to compromise the freedom of the many.

The comparison seems to fall down when you get to 'the damage done in cases where wearing the burqa is a cause of serious harm'.
I understand how you can do serious harm to someone else with a gun, and that doing serious harm to someone else is in fact the purpose of a gun.
I don't understand how you can do serious harm to someone else with a burka; or that the purpose of a burka is to cause harm to others. The arguments put forward so far are that people are harmed by being forced to have burkas, not by choosing to have them, or even by others choosing to have them.
Or, to bastardise the phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people", people wearing burkas don't oppress people, people forcing people to wear burkas oppress people.

Taking away the burka doesn't take away the oppression.

Burty330 · 29-06-2015 10:14AM

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

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're certainly free to express your discomfort at "having to deal with a covered face". What you're not free to do is to require other people to act so as to remove your discomfort - your discomfort is your problem, not theirs.

People who don't like to see two men, or two women, holding hands or kissing can solve the problem by closing their eyes. People who don't like to converse with those wearing face coverings can solve the problem by not conversing with them, and by not putting themselves in situations where they are required to converse with them.

Respect the laws of the land and the cultures of the country you live in. Western society do not have to cater for these backward primate images of oppression. Their conformist religions attire is not compatible in free democratic western society therefore they bare the discomfort of changing - not us.

29-06-2015 10:16AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Burty330 wrote: »

Respect the laws of the land and the cultures of the country you live in. Western society do not have to cater for these backward primate images of oppression. Their conformist religions attire is not compatible in free democratic western society therefore they bare the discomfort of changing - not us.

This is one of the most head wreckingly hypocritical posts I've ever seen!

Absolam · 29-06-2015 10:21AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Burty330 wrote: »

Respect the laws of the land and the cultures of the country you live in. Western society do not have to cater for these backward primate images of oppression. Their conformist religions attire is not compatible in free democratic western society therefore they bare the discomfort of changing - not us.

And the culture of Muslims born and raised in democratic western societies is being catered for where in that? When did the 'we' that grew up next door to me stop being 'us', when she put on a veil? I don't think so.

smacl · 29-06-2015 10:27AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

IOr, to bastardise the phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people", people wearing burkas don't oppress people, people forcing people to wear burkas oppress people.

Taking away the burka doesn't take away the oppression.

So on that basis would you make it legal to own and carry firearms in this jurisdiction, after all banning them is an infringement on our freedom? Do you think limiting the right to bear arms limits the amount of gun crime?

29-06-2015 10:29AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Weapons =/= clothing

We have no rights to weapons, we do have rights (and obligations) to clothing.

silverharp · 29-06-2015 10:31AM

smacl wrote: »

If the kids wearing hoodies started walking around with their faces fully covered using masks or balaclavas do you doubt there would be uproar? In western society we don't typically hide our identity by covering our faces, other than for protection from the elements or at fancy dress parties. The other exception of course is to commit crime, which is why people are understandably nervous of those who seek to be anonymous in public places.

I'm happy enough with the French ruling which I think covers all public buildings and I assume public transport. As for now I wouldn't want it a rule that you can't walk down a street wearing such gear as I dont see it as a safety issue for me. If it was used as cover for a suicide bombings then it would move the argument on

smacl · 29-06-2015 11:25AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

Weapons =/= clothing

We have no rights to weapons, we do have rights (and obligations) to clothing.

Depends who you read and what you make of what they have to say. Amara and others point to the use of the burqa as an aid to the systematic abuse of women in French ghettos. From what I've read, her arguments seem reasonable and sincere, and as such accept that the burqa is being used as a weapon in this context, even if it is not the case in other contexts. Her stance is that banning the burqa removes it as a weapon of oppression and is justified on that basis.

29-06-2015 11:33AM

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Depends who you read and what you make of what they have to say. Amara and others point to the use of the burqa as an aid to the systematic abuse of women in French ghettos. From what I've read, her arguments seem reasonable and sincere, and as such accept that the burqa is being used as a weapon in this context, even if it is not the case in other contexts. Her stance is that banning the burqa removes it as a weapon of oppression and is justified on that basis.

Once again on this point, there are laws against abuse, are you arguing that the burka prevents these laws from being policed*?

Recall my question about beatings being across the backs of children and then t-shirts and other clothing covering these marks up. Was the correct response to ban t-shirts, shirts and any and all clothing that might cover the back?

No, it was to police the issue at hand.

Also note that I have zero problem with recognising that there may well be a significant correlation between those instances of abuse and those who wear the burka.

However, if we found that the majority of domestic abuse occurred on weekends, would we ban weekends? Or police domestic abuse?

smacl · 29-06-2015 11:46AM

I'm religious and support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

Once again on this point, there are laws against abuse, are you arguing that the burka prevents these laws from being policed effectively?

Recall my question about beatings being across the backs of children and then t-shirts and other clothing covering these marks up. Was the correct response to ban t-shirts, shirts and any and all clothing that might cover the back?

No, it was to police the issue at hand.

Also note that I have zero problem with recognising that there may well be a significant correlation between those instances of abuse and those who wear the burka.

There are laws against shooting people with firearms in America, yet people still get shot in America with a much higher frequency than in countries that ban firearms.

Social workers in the French ghettos suggest that the burqas do interfere with identification and policing of systematic abuse, and again I would have no reason to doubt either the veracity or sincerity of that opinion. Without having first hand expertise of the situation, surely we are compelled to take on the views of those that do and in the absence of strong contrary evidence act on those views?

29-06-2015 11:51AM

I'm religious and support the ban

How about addressing my two questions regarding both an example (backs being flogged) and a thought experiment (correlation of weekends and domestic abuse) and see if the reasons being portrayed hold up in those cases too.

Social workers in the French ghettos suggest that the burqas do interfere with identification and policing of systematic abuse, and again I would have no reason to doubt either the veracity or sincerity of that opinion. Without having first hand expertise of the situation, surely we are compelled to take on the views of those that do and in the absence of strong contrary evidence act on those views?

I don't think this is a compelling argument for an outright ban. See my t-shirt example and test the assumptions. If social workers require additional powers or laws in order to do their job, let's try to find a way to help them directly. Otherwise it's very much a case of using Thor's hammer to tack a photo to a wall.

Long hair isn't banned in case it covers up scars and wounds, make up isn't banned for it's ability to conceal a bruise etc.

Mark Hamill · 29-06-2015 12:35PM

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

Absolam wrote: »

It certainly appears to infer your answer would be "Yes, if a woman chooses to wear hijab, it automatically follows that she is living under a culture of oppression and control and there is no possibility that she is not,so there is no point in considering her actual circumstances.".
But I asked so that you had the opportunity to say if this or is not your opinion, rather than inferring that is what you think from what you said.
Would you prefer your opinion be inferred, or that you should state it, given t he opportunity?

My post:
"the burka is not just a piece of clothing, it is inexorably tied to a whole culture of oppression and control. That's why the only women who "choose" to wear it are women living under said culture of oppression and control."
Very clear. When you want to discuss it, instead of strawman it or ask redundant questions, I'll be here.

Absolam · 29-06-2015 02:09PM

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

So on that basis would you make it legal to own and carry firearms in this jurisdiction, after all banning them is an infringement on our freedom? Do you think limiting the right to bear arms limits the amount of gun crime?

Are you going to show how the opinion I put forward is pretty much the same argument the NRA use in America to defend the freedom to bear arms?
To your own question; do you mean on the basis of the notion that guns don't kill people, people kill people? If so, then no. My own opinion is it would be better served with the addition of the words 'and people with guns kill more people'.
It seems that limiting the right to bear arms ought to limit the amount of gun crime, though it is troubling to think that those who commit gun crime probably aren't using legally held arms to do so.

Absolam · 29-06-2015 02:13PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My post:
"the burka is not just a piece of clothing, it is inexorably tied to a whole culture of oppression and control. That's why the only women who "choose" to wear it are women living under said culture of oppression and control."
Very clear. When you want to discuss it, instead of strawman it or ask redundant questions, I'll be here.

Yes your post is clear. I'm not sure why you think questioning it is strawmanning it, but each to your own.
However, you may consider the question I asked redundant because you know the answer is "Yes, if a woman chooses to wear hijab, it automatically follows that she is living under a culture of oppression and control and there is no possibility that she is not,so there is no point in considering her actual circumstances.", or because you know the answer is "No, if a woman chooses to wear hijab, it does not automatically follow that she is living under a culture of oppression and control and there is a possibility that she is not,so there is a point in considering her actual circumstances."
You may know the answer is redundant, but since you haven't answered, no one else does.

smacl · 29-06-2015 03:02PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Absolam wrote: »

Are you going to show how the opinion I put forward is pretty much the same argument the NRA use in America to defend the freedom to bear arms?

Your earlier post is pretty consistent with NRA rhetoric;

Absolam wrote: »

"guns don't kill people, people kill people"

and the tag line on the end of your posts would keep those good ol' boys well happy.

Absolam wrote:

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition

To your own question; do you mean on the basis of the notion that guns don't kill people, people kill people? If so, then no. My own opinion is it would be better served with the addition of the words 'and people with guns kill more people'.
It seems that limiting the right to bear arms ought to limit the amount of gun crime, though it is troubling to think that those who commit gun crime probably aren't using legally held arms to do so.

How about 'in a society than severely restricts gun ownership, less people get shot'. The simple truth is there are extremely few situations where a private citizen needs to own a gun, where lots of people do own guns more people get shot, therefore it is reasonable to severely restrict the freedom to own a gun.

29-06-2015 03:06PM

I'm religious and support the ban

There is an issue here with trying to conflate gun ownership with burka wearing.

One is legally obliged to wear clothing in public.

One is never legally obliged to own a gun.

Pretty important issue really.

smacl · 29-06-2015 03:58PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

There is an issue here with trying to conflate gun ownership with burka wearing.

One is legally obliged to wear clothing in public.

One is never legally obliged to own a gun.

Pretty important issue really.

Not being allowed run around starkers really doesn't have much to do with it.

One is never legally obliged to wear a burqa, nor so far as I'm aware is it mandated by any religion, as most Muslim women in the west do not wear burqas. Wearing a burqa is however a documented cause of hardship to women in some contexts and causes social unrest in others. Much like gun ownership, no one needs to wear a burqa so why wear it? The point really is should we restrict certain freedoms where they are demonstrably harmful to certain other parts of our society? I believe so, YMMV.

29-06-2015 04:04PM

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Not being allowed run around starkers really doesn't have much to do with it.

Of course it does.
One must wear some clothing in public. That is in law.
The law makes no requirements of people to possess some weapons.

smacl wrote: »

One is never legally obliged to wear a burqa, nor so far as I'm aware is it mandated by any religion, as most Muslim women in the west do not wear burqas. Wearing a burqa is however a documented cause of hardship to women in some contexts and causes social unrest in others. Much like gun ownership, no one needs to wear a burqa so why wear it? The point really is should we restrict certain freedoms where they are demonstrably harmful to certain other parts of our society? I believe so, YMMV.

Apply the same logic to the following items of clothing. Be consistent in your tests.

A pair of pyjamas with a gold star.
A Nazi Uniform.
A Red coat uniform.

Are these also to be banned from being warn in public?

smacl · 29-06-2015 04:17PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

Apply the same logic to the following items of clothing. Be consistent in your tests.

A pair of pyjamas with a gold star.
A Nazi Uniform.
A Red coat uniform.

Are these also to be banned from being warn in public?

Do any of the above garments have a documented connection with the systematic abuse and oppression of women in the country considering the ban? Nope. Do any of them conceal the identity of the wearer such that they make other people nervous? Nope. Is wearing any of these garments likely to lead to social unrest? Maybe, not sure how upset people would get by people marching about in Nazi gear, so proceed with caution on that. PJs and various other onesies, and/or red coats? Not really a fashion choice I'd go for, but whatever floats your boat.

If you're looking for personal freedoms that lead to unrest and have to be legislated for, how about guys marching about in the sash in NI? They have the right, but the problems it causes shows that this right has to be exercised with care, and when this is not happening restricted by the authorities.

29-06-2015 04:22PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Why concentrate only on women?

Could you address instead of deflect please?

smacl · 29-06-2015 04:23PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

Why concentrate only on women?

Can you not address instead of deflect?

Sorry, you've lost me entirely. Could you be a bit more specific?

29-06-2015 04:26PM

I'm religious and support the ban

smacl wrote: »

Sorry, you've lost me entirely. Could you be a bit more specific?

I'd be extraordinarily confident that each of my examples get the exact same answers from your tests (paraphrased & adapted to be a bit more inclusive from your earlier posts).

One is never legally obliged to wear a *
It is not mandated by any religion to wear a *
Most people in the west do not wear a *
Wearing a * is however a documented cause of hardship to people in some contexts and causes social unrest in others.
Much like gun ownership, no one needs to wear a * so why wear it?

Are they to be banned? What are the tests for what is acceptable to wear and not?

smacl · 29-06-2015 04:34PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd be extraordinarily confident that each of my examples get the exact same answers from your tests (paraphrased & adapted to be a bit more inclusive from your earlier posts).
One is never legally obliged to wear a *

It is not mandated by any religion to wear a *

Most people in the west do not wear a *

Wearing a * is however a documented cause of hardship to people in some contexts and causes social unrest in others.

Much like gun ownership, no one needs to wear a * so why wear it?

Are they to be banned? What are the tests for what is acceptable to wear and not?

Ok, ya got me. Where is it documented that some people wearing PJs with a gold star or a red coat is a cause of hardship in a country considering banning those items of clothing?

Burka ban

Comments