Burka ban

LorMal · 11-03-2016 05:21PM

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

Deleted User wrote: »

Give us a few examples of what we should add to the Constitution when you get a chance.

We've never had any problems as a result of doing something similar before have we?

Secularism

Nodin · 11-03-2016 05:23PM

I'm religious and support the ban

LorMal wrote: »

Well, you started it - balaclavas, dark sun glasses, doc martens, combat jackets, moustaches.

LorMal wrote:

Touched a nerve, Emmet? . Tell you what, go ahead and wear your Burka.

What have either of those comments to do with the subject at hand.

Nodin · 11-03-2016 05:25PM

I'm religious and support the ban

MrPudding wrote: »

How many people in, for example, London wear stockings on their head or balaclavas? I would guess it would be less than 2000, and I am pretty sure one sticks out like a sore thumb when wearing them, yet amazingly criminals still do it...

Criminals do not walk around the streets so dressed.

LorMal · 11-03-2016 05:29PM

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

Nodin wrote: »

What have either of those comments to do with the subject at hand.

Ah Nodin, get off your high horse. You are consistently sardonic in your posts. This was in reply to your post suggesting I was advocating a dress code for western democracies. See?

Nodin · 11-03-2016 05:34PM

I'm religious and support the ban

LorMal wrote: »

Ah Nodin, get off your high horse. You are consistently sardonic in your posts. This was in reply to your post suggesting I was advocating a dress code for western democracies. See?

You posted this
"We should insist that we abide by certain principles as a society, enshrined in our Constitution, and that those who want to live here need to accept and abide by them. "
so that would seem to be what you were doing for here at least.

One eyed Jack · 11-03-2016 05:45PM

Cabaal wrote: »

But Muslim women are being told what to wear by men,
Religious leaders are men, men wrote the religious texts they read.

A girl isn't just born and decides for non reason to cover her face, her reasoning is based on social pressures which originated from men. They are conditioned to think no different to this from a very young age.

We do that here in the West with children all the time. Women are conditioned from a young age to behave and think and dress a certain way; men are conditioned from a young age to behave, think and dress a certain way. Anyone regardless of their sex, who deviates from these norms, is often viewed with a degree of suspicion. Yet here we are employing double standards when it comes to the burqa because now it's not our problem that some people find it uncomfortable - it's their problem, and the burqa must be removed to satisfy those few people who have a problem with it.

Humans are social creatures we like to interact and see each other when communicating, look at the vast majority of worldwide cultures and tribes and you'll see that covering all of your face with the exception of your eye's is extremely rare. It is not the norm in human societies.

How about covering your eye with the exception of your face? I wear an eye-patch because I'm blind in one eye and it's fair ugly looking (uveitis), and outdoors I wear sunglasses because I'm hypersensitive to light, earphones to block out noise because I'm hypersensitive to sounds. I communicate when I need to, and I have that choice. Is the reason for the burqa removal because you want these women to communicate with you ? Should that not be their choice as to whether they want to communicate with other people, in whatever way they choose to communicate with other people?

The only reason why its normal for some Muslims is its pushed into their brains at a young age that they must do so in the name of their faith

It's a good thing you said 'some' Muslims there, because I was about to ask you how do you explain converts?

When an elected official can wear a fcuking colander on his head, then all arguments against a burqa are moot -

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/pastafarian-politician-takes-oath-office-wearing-colander-head-article-1.1568877

LorMal · 11-03-2016 06:13PM

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

Nodin wrote: »

You posted this
"We should insist that we abide by certain principles as a society, enshrined in our Constitution, and that those who want to live here need to accept and abide by them. "
so that would seem to be what you were doing for here at least.

Yep, it's what a Constitution is for, isn't it? To set out a set of aspirations and principles which we hold dear?
I would argue that it is important that we insist that all our people are equal and should be treated as such - irrespective of their religion. Our State should supercede over any archaic practice that subverts those rights.
The Burka is a symbol of the husbands absolute and total possession of the woman. She is covered completely so no other man can look upon her with lust. He walks in front of her - she behind him in total subservience. It is medieval servitude.
How the hell this can be supported by Feminists is beyond me. This is also not a right/left issue.

One eyed Jack · 11-03-2016 06:45PM

LorMal wrote: »

Yep, it's what a Constitution is for, isn't it? To set out a set of aspirations and principles which we hold dear?
I would argue that it is important that we insist that all our people are equal and should be treated as such - irrespective of their religion. Our State should supercede over any archaic practice that subverts those rights.
The Burka is a symbol of the husbands absolute and total possession of the woman. She is covered completely so no other man can look upon her with lust. He walks in front of her - she behind him in total subservience. It is medieval servitude.
How the hell this can be supported by Feminists is beyond me. This is also not a right/left issue.

Legislating to demand the removal of the burqa isn't the State treating people equally irrespective of their religion, it's exactly the opposite - treating people differently because of their religion. It's an affront to the principle of religious freedom and the right of all citizens to manifest their religion. It's exactly as one person who I was talking to about the ERB curriculum put it - "secularism by stealth".

11-03-2016 07:13PM

I'm religious and support the ban

LorMal wrote: »

Secularism

What is secularist about banning religious stuff???

130Kph · 11-03-2016 07:37PM

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

I’ve been reading pages (here and there) on the thread from page 1 - my second effort, since it’s so long (but good).

The faux-naive “where is the evidence for coercion” brigade simply have no credibility. Zero. I don’t believe their ‘stance’ for a minute.

I condemn people using this issue either as a political football or in terms of hobby-horse devil’s advocate nonsense.

Evidence for coercion? There isn’t much or any? peer reviewed evidence in this area (open to correction) but here is one view from an ex-muslims site which shows the coercion & mixed up complexity of the conditioning of girls/women (including some Stockholm syndrome).

Btw, I can’t see why her view would be any different in Belgium/France/Ireland.

council of ex-muslims site wrote:

I hated wearing it, and sometimes it was only force that made me wear it, but there was a time I wore it to show allah how committed I was, not to get people thinking I was pious, but so that allah knew I was. It was a private thing between allah and me, and not about a public show.

The fact that people stared was minor in comparison to allah knowing that I was committed.

The pro's were that I knew people were staring at me for a specific reason, rather than all the imagined reasons I imagine when I never wore it. I was anonymous, which for me and my need to be left alone was wonderful. I could walk past people I knew and not have to stop and say hello. I'm pretty anti social, and it really helped with that.

The cons were the inability to breathe properly. I don't sleep under a blanket, never have done, I feel suffocated even if I try to leave a gap for air, so having my mouth covered was claustrophobic to the max. It's like nasty stale warm air being recycled over and over again. I used to come home and rip it off on the few times I went out, which I'll be honest, I mostly avoided doing.

It's hot, I wore dark colours always, and I don't care what more pious muslimahs say about it not being hot, to me I was sweltering.

I never wore eye coverings though. That just seemed stupid. What, I'm supposed to go blind practically lest some guy go bonkers for my eyes? no I don't think so.

All in all, even though I miss being able to hide behind it, I would never wear one again.

source

Samaris · 11-03-2016 07:56PM

I'm religious and support the ban

MrPudding wrote: »

How many people in, for example, London wear stockings on their head or balaclavas? I would guess it would be less than 2000, and I am pretty sure one sticks out like a sore thumb when wearing them, yet amazingly criminals still do it... It is almost as if they have a reason other than blending in for wearing something that makes them stick out like a sore thumb, but at the same time obscures their identity... I wonder what that might be?

MrP

Well, yes, but there's no well-established non-dubious cultural reason for wearing a balaclava. Thus, anyone wearing one is considered to be up to something. Whereas we do actually know that there's a lot of people around the world that wear the burqa for cultural and religious reasons that don't involve holding up banks or blowing things up.

I mean, apples and kangaroos here...

LorMal wrote: »

Well, you started it - balaclavas, dark sun glasses, doc martens, combat jackets, moustaches.

I'm going to have a divil of a time growing a mustache

Christy42 · 11-03-2016 08:03PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Samaris wrote: »

Well, yes, but there's no well-established non-dubious cultural reason for wearing a balaclava. Thus, anyone wearing one is considered to be up to something. Whereas we do actually know that there's a lot of people around the world that wear the burqa for cultural and religious reasons that don't involve holding up banks or blowing things up.

I mean, apples and kangaroos here...

I'm going to have a divil of a time growing a mustache

Just because some people have ruined wearing balaclavas for evil doesn't mean that everyone who wants to is. Surely we can bring it back. I mean after all it has to be allowed if we are allowing the burqa- fair is fair.

Note I don't mind if you want to ban them or keep them but they are essentially the same thing, the fact that one has a connection to an old book is irrelevant. Either ban both or keep both.

One eyed Jack · 11-03-2016 08:22PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Just because some people have ruined wearing balaclavas for evil doesn't mean that everyone who wants to is. Surely we can bring it back. I mean after all it has to be allowed if we are allowing the burqa- fair is fair.

Note I don't mind if you want to ban them or keep them but they are essentially the same thing, the fact that one has a connection to an old book is irrelevant. Either ban both or keep both.

Who's campaigning for legislation to ban your right to wear a balaclava should you choose to do so? You're making a spurious argument if you're trying to claim that you aren't legally entitled to wear a balaclava when no such law exists that prevents you from doing so, yet you would want a law introduced to ban women wearing a burqa. That's not even double standards, that's just arguing for the sake of it.

Nodin · 11-03-2016 09:13PM

I'm religious and support the ban

LorMal wrote: »

Yep, it's what a Constitution is for, isn't it? To set out a set of aspirations and principles which we hold dear?
I would argue that it is important that we insist that all our people are equal and should be treated as such - irrespective of their religion. Our State should supercede over any archaic practice that subverts those rights.
The Burka is a symbol of the husbands absolute and total possession of the woman. She is covered completely so no other man can look upon her with lust. He walks in front of her - she behind him in total subservience. It is medieval servitude.
How the hell this can be supported by Feminists is beyond me. This is also not a right/left issue.

So you are saying there should be a dress code in the constitution.

Kiwi in IE · 11-03-2016 09:59PM

I'm religious and support the ban

I don't support outlawing a particular item of clothing, but they should have to be removed in all situations where helmets/balaclavas are forbidden for security reasons (banks, official photos etc). If I want to walk down the street with a scarf or any other item, covering all of my face except my eyes, I don't see why I should be prohibited by law from doing so. I assume that in places where burqas are illegal, all other items that cover a persons face in a similar way are also outlawed? Are people allowed to use bedsheets to dress as ghosts at Halloween? Surely this must be illegal too?

Absolam · 11-03-2016 10:42PM

I'm religious and support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

It comes back to looking at certain religious/cultural practices and judging are there negative consequences attached to them worth doing something about.

But the negative consequences you've presented are not the consequences of wearing a burka; they're the consequences of having violent opinions about burkas. You're advocating taking action against the victims of those consequences instead of the perpetrators, which is hardly just.

silverharp wrote: »

On the face of it someone wearing a burka is essentially excluded from the workforce.

On the face of it banning the wearing of burkas in public has no effect on wearing them in the workplace, regardless of the fact that there are so very many jobs that can be performed whilst one's face is covered, not to mention the jobs that require one to cover one's face.

silverharp wrote: »

And it appears to be a religious tool to create extreme levels of separateness within society which has a knock on effect on education and future generations.

And allowing for the fact that appearances can be deceiving, it appears to those who choose the burka that it's a tool for social cohesion, and is of benefit to women and men. I'd be wary of legally limiting freedoms on the basis of how things appear to people to be honest.

Absolam · 11-03-2016 10:43PM

I'm religious and support the ban

LorMal wrote: »

Oh dear. We don't prohibit people wearing hideous golf jumpers either. The point is about what the garment represents - the repressive ideology behind it - not the garment itself.

Oh dear? We don't ban ideologies either, do we? We prevent people from acting against others on the basis of ideologies, but freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our society. Unlike Germany, the rest of Europe can cope with not agreeing with Nazism and still allowing people to dress as Nazis. But not Muslims?

Gbear · 11-03-2016 10:54PM

I'm religious and support the ban

LorMal wrote: »

I worry about this slant on the issue. I believe there are practices, customs and belief systems that are not acceptable here. Female circumcision, flogging, amputation, stoning are examples. I believe we have every right to legislate against these archaic practices. This is not social engineering.

Banning such violent acts are emergent properties of our liberal principles.

Banning clothes people freely choose to wear, on the other hand, flies directly in the face of them.

These sorts of arguments are quite revealing in how liberal people really are and what the motivations are behind their beliefs.

Many people have inherited or developed a set of liberal-flavoured beliefs but as soon as you take them out of their comfort zone they're happy to leave any supposed principles that ought to underpin them at the door in favour of authoritarianism.

Instead of truly considering what the beliefs entail, they're treated as discrete ideas that have no bearing on one another.

130Kph wrote: »

I’ve been reading pages (here and there) on the thread from page 1 - my second effort, since it’s so long (but good).

The faux-naive “where is the evidence for coercion” brigade simply have no credibility. Zero. I don’t believe their ‘stance’ for a minute.

I condemn people using this issue either as a political football or in terms of hobby-horse devil’s advocate nonsense.

Evidence for coercion? There isn’t much or any? peer reviewed evidence in this area (open to correction) but here is one view from an ex-muslims site which shows the coercion & mixed up complexity of the conditioning of girls/women (including some Stockholm syndrome).

Btw, I can’t see why her view would be any different in Belgium/France/Ireland.

source

The issue isn't of pretending that there's no social pressure to wear such clothing but that singling that clothing and that kind of pressure out is not compatible with how freedom works in our countries.

As far as your bog standard adult goes
- You cannot legally compel someone to wear an article of clothing they don't want to. The law might be better applied or more social outreach programs might be encouraged, but the framework already exists on that front without needing to regress our society and the freedoms it's supposed to guarantee.

- All people are subject to social pressure that compel them to act in a variety of ways, but none of these actions are compulsory - they are decisions made, perhaps against a person's self-interest, in favour of allowing them to fit in.
The burka might be the most extreme common example of this, but it is fundamentally the same and cannot be seperated from the others, other than by pulling arbitrary reasons out of your arse.

- Brainwashing via religion being a valid argument against people having autonomy isn't something you get to apply to suit one niche argument and pretend like it won't have other ramifications just because you say so.
The completely non-secular and utterly tyrannical society that follows from that idea is surely not one any sane person could call liberal or pluralistic.

130Kph · 12-03-2016 12:24AM

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

Gbear wrote: »

The issue isn't of pretending that there's no social pressure to wear such clothing but that singling that clothing and that kind of pressure out is not compatible with how freedom works in our countries.

As I said I am reading/slogging through the thread, in fits & starts, from page 1 - and as you well know (remember?) this specific point was explained to you (yes, I got that far) i.e. most people would prefer no bans or interference in people’s clothing choice but these two countries did this because it was the lesser of two evils. (you don’t agree – fine) I’ve nothing further to add regarding this point.

As far as your bog standard adult goes
- You cannot legally compel someone to wear an article of clothing they don't want to. The law might be better applied or more social outreach programs might be encouraged, but the framework already exists on that front without needing to regress our society and the freedoms it's supposed to guarantee.

Thankfully no European gov’t or any pro-ban person here says such a thing. I think you are talking to yourself here. This would be unacceptable in any case. The wider point about education has been dealt with on this thread in 2010 (i.e. agreed that it is a primary & bleedin obvious part of the wider approach to this overhanging anomaly from ancient misogynist times).

- All people are subject to social pressure that compel them to act in a variety of ways, but none of these actions are compulsory - they are decisions made, perhaps against a person's self-interest, in favour of allowing them to fit in.
The burka might be the most extreme common example of this, but it is fundamentally the same and cannot be seperated from the others, other than by pulling arbitrary reasons out of your arse.

I accept you are coming at this from a European post-liberal perspective of hard won freedoms (all of which I agree with strongly) but you are still de-contextualising the burka (& niqab – which is effectively the same thing) and it’s deeply, obnoxious misogynistic history.

The fact that you do this renders any of your subsequent (Euro post-liberal) arguments void (as robindch explained Ad nauseam in 2010). It’s that simple.

So this is still basically a failure to engage in the debate. In my opinion of course.

- Brainwashing via religion being a valid argument against people having autonomy isn't something you get to apply to suit one niche argument and pretend like it won't have other ramifications just because you say so.
The completely non-secular and utterly tyrannical society that follows from that idea is surely not one any sane person could call liberal or pluralistic.

This was answered in 2010/2013 too, better than I could.

Anyway, slippery slope arguments are amongst the worst arguments of all; they are so bad- I’m not even sure if you’re being serious here.

Preventing (1900 or 30 (in 2010)) immigrant women (some of who were) being subjugated into wearing a misogynistic, dehumanising tent from the dark ages is going to inevitably lead to the degradation of Europe into a tyrannical Mad Max society opposite to the general thrust of the history of the last 5,000 years.

I think this concept has no utility in even a half serious discussion.

Absolam · 12-03-2016 12:43AM

I'm religious and support the ban

130Kph wrote: »

As I said I am reading/slogging through the thread, in fits & starts, <...> Ho-ho-ho ha-ha-ha :P Hint: not a good point!

In short, somebody else said something else someone else disagreed with before now? Not a great point either....

Gbear · 12-03-2016 01:16AM

I'm religious and support the ban

130Kph wrote: »

As I said I am reading/slogging through the thread, in fits & starts, from page 1 - and as you well know (remember?) this specific point was explained to you (yes, I got that far) i.e. most people would prefer no bans or interference in people’s clothing choice but these two countries did this because it was the lesser of two evils. (you don’t agree – fine) I’ve nothing further to add regarding this point.

Surely, you get no pleasure from re-iterating the same false interpretation of others position (or maybe you do)?? Anyway, blind ideology is not admirable.

Astonishingly, I don't remember every post I've written in the past 4 years, nor do I know offhand every twist and turn of a debate that's 3000+ posts long.

I'm not interpreting anything. The random collection of words you've strung together has very little to do with the piece of text you quoted.

130Kph wrote: »

Thankfully no European gov’t or any pro-ban person here says such a thing. I think you are talking to yourself here. This would be unacceptable in any case. The wider point about education has been dealt with on this thread in 2010 (i.e. agreed that it is a primary & bleedin obvious part of the wider approach to this overhanging anomaly from ancient misogynist times).

You didn't understand what I wrote.

"You cannot legally compel someone to wear an article of clothing they don't want to." means that we already have the legal framework required to deal with this issue. We do not need, nor can we tolerate something further - such as a ban.

130Kph wrote: »

I accept you are coming at this from a European post-liberal perspective of hard won freedoms (all of which I agree with strongly) but you are still de-contextualising the burka (& niqab – which is effectively the same thing) and it’s deeply, obnoxious misogynistic history.

The fact that you do this renders any of your subsequent (Euro post-liberal) arguments void (as robindch explained Ad nauseam in 2010). It’s that simple.

So this is still basically a failure to engage in the debate. In my opinion of course.

I'm de-contextualising the burqa because it's context is not relevant to the discussion.
I find the desire to contextualise revealing in how people think about this issue.

People have one set of beliefs but then something yucky comes along so they just kinda pretend that liberalism isn't important for a bit and do some mental gymnastics by dressing it up as protecting women.

130Kph wrote: »

This was answered in 2010/2013 too, better than I could.

Slippery slope arguments are probably the worst arguments of all; they are so bad- I’m not sure if you’re even being serious here.

Preventing (1900 or 30 (in 2010)) immigrant women (some of who were) being subjugated into wearing a misogynistic, dehumanising tent from the dark ages is going to inevitably lead to the degradation of Europe into a tyrannical society opposite to the general thrust of the history of the last 5,000 years.

Ho-ho-ho ha-ha-ha :P

Hint: not a good point!

One of the laziest pseudo-intellectual arguments is from people who read "slippery slope fallacy" once and apply it forevermore to any argument that attempts to make an argument from first principles.

A slippery slope fallacy cannot be applied any time someone suggests "a will lead to b". It's suggesting such a thing when there is no clear logical progression.

I did not argue that banning the burqa will lead to the downfall of western society.
I said that the principle you're applying cannot be narrowly confined to this specific issue just because you cross your fingers.
The idea that underpins it (and not a specific law) are the problem. Those ideas are anti-secular and completley illiberal.

Whether the worst case scenario of applying those principles will fully manifest themselves in the furture isn't important.
Just because we might get away with it from a practical perspective is not a valid excuse to enact illogical laws that utterly contradict our principles.

They're either right or they're wrong.
If you're too intellectually cowardly to stick to them because there are bad things that's your problem.

Kiwi in IE · 12-03-2016 01:36AM

I'm religious and support the ban

LorMal wrote: »

Oh dear. We don't prohibit people wearing hideous golf jumpers either. The point is about what the garment represents - the repressive ideology behind it - not the garment itself.

There are loads of garments/items that are common in society that could be viewed as being representative of oppressive ideologies. Any outward symbol of religion, in my personal opinion, is representative of an oppressive ideology, but it's none of my concern and doesn't affect me if others choose to wear them. Some feminists may view certain types of clothing aimed at women/girls, make up etc, as representative of an oppressive ideology. Where should the line be drawn?

Aside from that, it would be mildly hypocritical to say the least, to ban the burqa on the basis that it represents an oppressive ideology, whilst continuing to indoctrinate another oppressive ideology into small children in 90% of the primary schools funded by the state.

Ireland is certainly not in a position to be high horsing about Islam while it continues to fail to address the position in society of the RCC!

130Kph · 12-03-2016 02:52AM

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

Gbear wrote: »

You didn't understand what I wrote.

"You cannot legally compel someone to wear an article of clothing they don't want to." means that we already have the legal framework required to deal with this issue. We do not need, nor can we tolerate something further - such as a ban.

Has there been thousands of court cases of this law being applied in practice regarding the burka/niqab in France before 2010 or in other European countries where there is no ban? Has there been one case?

I think setting 15 year old girls against her parents, in a courtroom is impractical for such an insidious social issue.

I'm de-contextualising the burqa because it's context is not relevant to the discussion.
I find the desire to contextualise revealing in how people think about this issue.

People have one set of beliefs but then something yucky comes along so they just kinda pretend that liberalism isn't important for a bit and do some mental gymnastics by dressing it up as protecting women.........

I said that the principle you're applying cannot be narrowly confined to this specific issue ......

Yes it can.

I accept such a ban is illiberal – (this is about the insidious subjugation of women & not about a garment).

It is a simple measure in the big scheme of things – the lesser of two evils.

I do not accept it cannot be confined to this issue. The last thing TD’s, French MPs or Belgian MP’s want to be doing is wasting their time on such a topic.

The notion that banning the burka/niqab drives a coach and four horses through liberalism itself is hardly credible.

That strikes me as a kind of insecurity about liberalism or a very weak, bleak, simplistic attitude to what liberalism is and must be.

What you call the rupturing of liberalism, I call pragmatism.

You think it’s a huge deal (a break from immutable 1st principles);

I think it’s a minor, pragmatic adjustment (with principles soundly in place).

Anyway, I think I’ll leave it there.

robindch · 12-03-2016 03:39AM

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

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

how rude is it to talk to someone with your face covered? intimidating too.

With due deference to the gentle ladies who were seated at a restaurant table next to mine in a Riyadh mall some years back, I have to say that the sadness and sense of oppression one feels at seeing women forced to wear identical clothing can be somewhat offset by watching them attempt to eat pasta - the technique involves putting one's wrist up to one's nose, then splaying one's fingers up and out wide to lift up the black flap and thereby exposing the mouth. You'd have thought that it was safe enough, but in practice, pasta and bolognese goes everywhere.

LorMal · 12-03-2016 12:17PM

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

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

There are loads of garments/items that are common in society that could be viewed as being representative of oppressive ideologies. Any outward symbol of religion, in my personal opinion, is representative of an oppressive ideology, but it's none of my concern and doesn't affect me if others choose to wear them. Some feminists may view certain types of clothing aimed at women/girls, make up etc, as representative of an oppressive ideology. Where should the line be drawn?

Aside from that, it would be mildly hypocritical to say the least, to ban the burqa on the basis that it represents an oppressive ideology, whilst continuing to indoctrinate another oppressive ideology into small children in 90% of the primary schools funded by the state.

Ireland is certainly not in a position to be high horsing about Islam while it continues to fail to address the position in society of the RCC!

Again, this feminist argument in support of the Burka. Really? The Burka is a manifestation of a women being the possession of her husband, in total subservience. Okay with that?

One eyed Jack · 12-03-2016 12:24PM

LorMal wrote: »

Again, this feminist argument in support of the Burka. Really? The Burka is a manifestation of a women being the possession of her husband, in total subservience. Okay with that?

You might like to read this -

http://www.iisna.com/articles/pamphlets/the-burqa-and-niqab-uncovering-the-facts/

(or you might not, as it contradicts your perspective)

LorMal · 12-03-2016 12:30PM

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

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You might like to read this -

http://www.iisna.com/articles/pamphlets/the-burqa-and-niqab-uncovering-the-facts/

(or you might not, as it contradicts your perspective)

I have read it. It is one view of many - even within Islam there is much debate on the issue.

One eyed Jack · 12-03-2016 12:54PM

LorMal wrote: »

I have read it. It is one view of many - even within Islam there is much debate on the issue.

Yes, and yours is but another view from your perspective, with no weight behind it whatsoever -

LorMal wrote: »

Again, this feminist argument in support of the Burka. Really? The Burka is a manifestation of a women being the possession of her husband, in total subservience. Okay with that?

That is your view, predicated on the assertion that the burqa is a manifestation of this supposed oppression. We could ascribe that same assertion to anything in Western society that is a "manifestation of women being the possession of men, in total subservience", and it wouldn't take much imagination to do it.

Or, we could, if we wanted, acknowledge that other people have different cultures, customs, beliefs and traditions that they should be allowed to practice, as our laws already allow for and protect.

I have yet to hear any compelling reason to ban women from wearing the burqa because those arguing for the ban view the burqa as a symbol of oppression. Like I said - the very notion contradicts itself, and all other reasons such as security concerns and social interaction have already been demonstrated to be without any solid foundation given that we already practice many of these things already in our society.

Absolam · 12-03-2016 01:22PM

I'm religious and support the ban

LorMal wrote: »

Again, this feminist argument in support of the Burka. Really? The Burka is a manifestation of a women being the possession of her husband, in total subservience. Okay with that?

The burka is a piece of cloth. Okay with that?

LorMal · 12-03-2016 03:24PM

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

Absolam wrote: »

The burka is a piece of cloth. Okay with that?

Again, it is what it represents.

Burka ban

Comments