Burka ban

Permabear · 30-04-2010 4:42pm

This post has been deleted.

robindch · 30-04-2010 5:05pm

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

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And, as I said above, liberalism can only work where there is no manipulation or coercion. This is not the case and I don't quite understand why you're ignoring the one fact upon which this entire debate turns.

Frei · 30-04-2010 5:06pm

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

When you are in Muslim countries are you expected to cover up in accordance with the prevailing culture? I think you are expected to. I know that banning something is different, but I do find hypocrisy in the fact that Westerners over in Dubai or other places are not allowed to do certain things that over here would be fine, and they stick to the rules (usually)

I detest all religions equally, but I do think that Islam has to be one of the most anti-female religions on this earth. It is one thing wearing a hijab but covering up women from head to toe is just disturbing.

Permabear · 30-04-2010 6:59pm

This post has been deleted.

robindch · 30-04-2010 11:43pm

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

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's not going to solve it, but it's going to cut it down and that's a good start.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As I've pointed out several times already and won't bother pointing out again, you're ignoring the central fact, namely that there is coercion and maipulation. In which case, it's quite reasonable for the state, with the support of the liberals (though not the libertarians), to step in a protect the rights of the coerced and manipulated.

I'm sure John Galt would have cheerfully left them rot

iUseVi · 01-05-2010 8:23am

robindch wrote: »

I'm sure John Galt would have cheerfully left them rot

Ha ha ha that made me choke on my coffee.

pH · 01-05-2010 9:18am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sure it can, we're happy with the idea of "banning" people walking naked, maybe you're not (you mightn't me of course but you'd be in the minority), and as far as I can see nakedness (of others) doesn't cause any actual harm - so once we accept that the way people can dress (or not) can offend others then the rest is just debating the details - if tyou can stop people being naked in public because they 'offend' then you could certainly ban the burka for the same reason.

I'm kind of torn on this, I think people should be free to wear anything (or nothing), however the practical implications of masked people I find a little troubling.

There was a recent backlash against "hoodies" (if not here then certainly in the UK), and I think nobody would be happy if a hooligan element in our society started wearing facemasks all the time as they drunkenly wandered the city center at night.

A la the "No motorcycle helmets" rule, what would happen if shops started to ban people with their faces covered (on the basis that it makes identification of shoplifters impossible) - is that also fair? Women wearing a burka free to use public property but banned from most shops?

checkyabadself · 01-05-2010 10:02am

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

I think burkas are oppressive and purely a tool used by extremely jealous husbands/fathers to keep prying eyes from their wives/daughters, whilst at the same time holding as many wives as they see fit, which is unbalanced as usual.

Burkas are not needed for modesty as set out in the koran, they serve no other purpose than to oppress a person and deny them an individuality and reduces a human being to the level of property or livestock.

Part of me ( the rational and politically correct part) wants to say no to the ban as its unfair in normal circumstances. I`d be okay with it if they were removed in the same way a motorcyclist conforms with the accepted norms, concerning entry to shops, banks, etc, but I dont see them adapting in anyway, (look at the drawings of muhammed as proof)

The other part of me (the really honest part) wants to say, the more we can do in a civilized society to end the poisonous practices of muslims, the better. I`ve no problem with people having and following their faith, but burkas have nothing to do with islam, just another way of reducing women to a sub human level.

Rev Hellfire · 01-05-2010 10:57am

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

checkyabadself wrote: »

The other part of me (the really honest part) wants to say, the more we can do in a civilized society to end the poisonous practices of muslims, the better. I`ve no problem with people having and following their faith, but burkas have nothing to do with islam, just another way of reducing women to a sub human level.

Must say I agree with you, its a mistake for this to be viewed as a West vs Islam issue, when really its a case of Western values vs. Arab/Wahhabi ideology.

Islam managed to spread itself extensively around the globe, but it wasn't until the advent of Saudi oil that facilitated the spread of the Wahhabi derivative of Islam that the burka emerged as a global issue rather than one confined to a particular cultural grouping.

The burka is potent symbol of this misogynistic theocratic ideology. An ideology which is not simply incompatible with western ideals of democracy and personal liberties but actively hostile to them.

Its also worth noting opposition to the Wahhabi/Burka is also present in other Islamic countries, with leading clerics there speaking out against it.

imho etc etc.

Permabear · 01-05-2010 12:21pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 01-05-2010 12:31pm

This post has been deleted.

Bus77II · 01-05-2010 2:58pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, but a woman in a Burka has no abillity to take part in any of these movements by her peers. And has very limited options when it come to following the clothing 'norms' in sociality also. Such as in employment.
Your defending options she cant avail of. Peer groups she cant join.
This is why I don't agree with Burkas in our society.

But, do I agree with a hard and fast law banning them? No. Because, if the ideal I want to promote is choice and freedom to move freely socially. Then it's just plain anti-ethical to send a policeman (who himself wears a uniform) to someone's door and have them say ''I want you and your kids to be able to take better part in pluralistic society, clothing wise. Now, get that off you!''.

What I would support is a bit of ''timed legislation'' for each family. Not a ban on first generation wearers but some sort of agreement that it is not to carry on fully to the second generation.

Permabear · 01-05-2010 3:27pm

This post has been deleted.

pH · 01-05-2010 5:16pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes *places*, not everywhere, anywhere at any time. Look let's go back to your original statement:

'The very question "Should we ban burqas?" only discloses a belief system that is deeply antithetical to individual liberty. It cannot be represented as anything else.'

Do you also agree with the very question "should we ban teachers being naked" only discloses a belief system that is deeply antithetical to individual liberty".

Anyway we already live in state where our liberties are curtailed, now your arguing against adding more is admirable, but unless we can go all the way, allow people to be naked, repeal the anti-libertarian seatbelt and motorcycle helmet legislation etc. then you are just making a special case for the burka based on a general rule that is not implemented across the board.

The bottom line is that, in a liberal pluralist country, it should not be a crime to offend someone. Choosing what to wear is both an individual choice and an expressive act. Whether someone chooses to express conformity with a shirt and tie, or rebellion with a pink mohawk and safety pin through the nose, is up to the individual. Such matters should never be legislated by the state.

But specifically what about the masked/anonymous aspect of it, in general is it OK for people to go around in public masked? and if so, would it be equally fine for private premises to refuse access to masked individuals?

--amadeus-- · 02-05-2010 12:42am

If this is genuinely about addressing muslims womens rights when living in western countries then a burqua ban is teh wrong tool. To my knowledge the only way of lifting a disadvantaged or oppressed group out and onto a level footing is through education. Enforcing mandatory schooling for all children, secularising education to broaden individuals horizons, encouraging all children to progress as far academically as they can and to eventually find work outside the home will do more to remove muslim female oppression than a blanket ban on an item of cloathing.

legspin · 02-05-2010 1:22am

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

--amadeus-- wrote: »

If this is genuinely about addressing muslims womens rights when living in western countries then a burqua ban is teh wrong tool. To my knowledge the only way of lifting a disadvantaged or oppressed group out and onto a level footing is through education. Enforcing mandatory schooling for all children, secularising education to broaden individuals horizons, encouraging all children to progress as far academically as they can and to eventually find work outside the home will do more to remove muslim female oppression than a blanket ban on an item of cloathing.

There is no way any government here would bring in that sort of legislation. Apart from the tentacles CC ltd. has stuck in the educational system, you'd have every other religious whack-job up in arms if you tried to enforce that.

I voted for btw. Got to start somewhere. and any step will be fraught.

cypharius · 02-05-2010 3:13pm

I'm religious and support the ban

My problem is that they're specifically targeting Muslims, I would be much happier if they banned balaclavas, and put burkhas in the same catagory.

kiffer · 02-05-2010 3:29pm

I'm religious and support the ban

cypharius wrote: »

My problem is that they're specifically targeting Muslims, I would be much happier if they banned balaclavas, and put burkhas in the same catagory.

And
motorcycle helmets with tinted visors and fancydress costumes and advertising costumes?

cypharius · 02-05-2010 3:31pm

I'm religious and support the ban

kiffer wrote: »

And
motorcycle helmets with tinted visors and fancydress costumes and advertising costumes?

Yes actualy, unless they are riding a motorcycle or are playing paintball people don't need to hide their faces.

Permabear · 02-05-2010 3:37pm

This post has been deleted.

MrPudding · 02-05-2010 3:41pm

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

Thin end of the wedge, by the looks of it.

http://www.euronews.net/2010/01/30/burqa-ban-debate-gains-momentum-across-europe/

I must say, that while I support the banning, I would be concerned with women not being allowed to leave the house. But I expect that will not last too long, once the men realise how hard it is to carry all the shopping they will probably relent.

MrP

irishconvert · 02-05-2010 7:09pm

MrPudding wrote: »

Thin end of the wedge, by the looks of it.

http://www.euronews.net/2010/01/30/burqa-ban-debate-gains-momentum-across-europe/

I must say, that while I support the banning, I would be concerned with women not being allowed to leave the house. But I expect that will not last too long, once the men realise how hard it is to carry all the shopping they will probably relent.

MrP

That assumes the men are forcing the women to wear it, and I have already told you I know a number of women who wear the burqa out of their own choice.

strobe · 02-05-2010 7:27pm

I'm religious and support the ban

irishconvert wrote: »

That assumes the men are forcing the women to wear it, and I have already told you I know a number of women who wear the burqa out of their own choice.

A generation ago plenty of women allowed their husbands to have total control of the family money and to make every decision to do with the family, accepted whatever they said and never questioned them. There was a time when women weren't allowed to vote or drive cars. I'm sure a percentage of them would have said that was their own choice and a lot of them probably believed what they were saying. (There are a lot of other examples I could give but I think you probably get the point)

It is extremely hard for someone that has been told what to believe from the day they were born to suddenly see that what they were lead to believe isn't in their best interest.

Spanish Eyes · 02-05-2010 7:28pm

irishconvert wrote: »

That assumes the men are forcing the women to wear it, and I have already told you I know a number of women who wear the burqa out of their own choice.

I'd be interested as to why such women choose to, maybe you could explain that thanks. Not being smart here, just curious. Is it a religious tenet for some forms of Islam? If so, that might explain why a minority wear it.

I have read that such clothing was necessary (and probably still is!) in the desert areas during sandstorms etc. I haven't seen the religious rules for it anywhere though.

irishconvert · 02-05-2010 7:35pm

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I'd be interested as to why such women choose to, maybe you could explain that thanks. Not being smart here, just curious. Is it a religious tenet for some forms of Islam? If so, that might explain why a minority wear it.

I have read that such clothing was necessary (and probably still is!) in the desert areas during sandstorms etc. I haven't seen the religious rules for it anywhere though.

It is their own interpretation. I, and the majority of Muslims, don't agree with their interpretation. Most Muslim women wear the hijab (headscarf). To be totally honest I don't like the burqa/niqab. But I do agree with freedom of choice so if these women want to wear it then let them do so. They are not harming anyone else.

irishconvert · 02-05-2010 7:38pm

strobe wrote: »

A generation ago plenty of women allowed their husbands to have total control of the family money and to make every decision to do with the family, accepted whatever they said and never questioned them. There was a time when women weren't allowed to vote or drive cars. I'm sure a percentage of them would have said that was their own choice and a lot of them probably believed what they were saying. (There are a lot of other examples I could give but I think you probably get the point)

It is extremely hard for someone that has been told what to believe from the day they were born to suddenly see that what they were lead to believe isn't in their best interest.

As I already said, these women that I KNOW who wear it tell me it is their choice. Also, they have sisters who don't wear it, so how do you explain that? I thought we had freedom in the west. I didn't think freedom included enforcing a rule on people cos we think it is "in their best interest" as you say?

PDN · 02-05-2010 7:39pm

MrPudding wrote: »

Thin end of the wedge, by the looks of it.

http://www.euronews.net/2010/01/30/burqa-ban-debate-gains-momentum-across-europe/

I must say, that while I support the banning, I would be concerned with women not being allowed to leave the house. But I expect that will not last too long, once the men realise how hard it is to carry all the shopping they will probably relent.

MrP

An interesting bit in that link is the proposed penalty of four years jail time for anyone forcing a woman to wear a burka. Now that I heartily support.

irishconvert · 02-05-2010 7:47pm

PDN wrote: »

An interesting bit in that link is the proposed penalty of four years jail time for anyone forcing a woman to wear a burka. Now that I heartily support.

No problem with that here. I also think someone forcing a women to remove a burqa or any other item of clothing should receive the same penalty.

strobe · 02-05-2010 7:47pm

I'm religious and support the ban

irishconvert wrote: »

As I already said, these women that I KNOW who wear it tell me it is their choice. Also, they have sisters who don't wear it, so how do you explain that? I thought we had freedom in the west. I didn't think freedom included enforcing a rule on people cos we think it is "in their best interest" as you say?

You missed my point. But for the record I am dead against the ban, I'm a supporter of individual freedom first and foremost, I'm a libertarian. (within reason of course, I might prefer to keep my bike helmet on when I walk into a shop, for instance, but I accept I can't do so). I am just trying to put forward the point that just because you ask a woman wearing a burka if she prefers having to wear it every single time she goes out in public and she says yes, that might not be the case. Just like asking a women a few years ago if she liked being completely dependant on her husband financially, she may well say yes, but that may not be the case. Either because she has no experience of the alternative, it is all she has ever known, or for other reasons.

irishconvert · 02-05-2010 7:51pm

strobe wrote: »

You missed my point. But for the record I am dead against the ban, I'm a supporter of individual freedom first and foremost. I am just trying to put forward to point that just because you ask a woman wearing a burka if she prefers having to wear it every single time she goes out in public and she says yes, that might not be the case. Either because she has no experience of not having to wear it, it is all she has ever known, or for other reasons.

Ok fair enough, but when a women is wearing it, and says it is her own choice, and her sister is not earing it, and says it is her choice not to wear it, do you think it is reasonable to believe her?

It is not good enough to ban the burqa for every woman because some people thinks some women are being forced to wear it. Even if you take situation where the Gardaí know a wife is being beaten by her husband, they can't do anything if the wife denies it is happening.

robindch · 02-05-2010 9:39pm

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

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Choices which depend upon the person's ability to make a free and unencumbered decision in the first place.

Galt, portrayed appropriately as a social autistic, could never have understood -- let alone dealt with -- the subtle, but enormous, power of social coercion and psychological manipulation.

irishconvert · 03-05-2010 12:30am

robindch wrote: »

Choices which depend upon the person's ability to make a free and unencumbered decision in the first place.

Galt, portrayed appropriately as a social autistic, could never have understood -- let alone dealt with -- the subtle, but enormous, power of social coercion and psychological manipulation.

Do you think that if a woman wants to wear Burqa, and is genuinely not being forced to wear it by her husband, father or anyone else, she should be allowed to do so?

ISAW · 03-05-2010 5:36am

irishconvert wrote: »

Do you think that if a woman wants to wear Burqa, and is genuinely not being forced to wear it by her husband, father or anyone else, she should be allowed to do so?

Do you think if someone does something which causes no physical harm but which other people find offensive they should be allowed to do it? Like wearing swastikas in public? Or wearing cartoons depicting a God or a prophet being tortured or made a joke of? Or having their wife walk around on all fours on a lead with a ball in their mouth? If the act is a personally degrading act but not physically harmful should it be allowed in public? This goes into the idea behind the Blasphemy Laws as well.

Rev Hellfire · 03-05-2010 7:52am

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

irishconvert wrote: »

Do you think that if a woman wants to wear Burqa, and is genuinely not being forced to wear it by her husband, father or anyone else, she should be allowed to do so?

It sounds (and perhaps is) a reasonable request, but sometimes in a civil society a person must give up a freedom so that others can have the ability to exercise theirs.

After all, all personal liberties are tempered by the need to consider the rights of others.

PDN · 03-05-2010 8:48am

ISAW wrote: »

Do you think if someone does something which causes no physical harm but which other people find offensive they should be allowed to do it? Like wearing swastikas in public? Or wearing cartoons depicting a God or a prophet being tortured or made a joke of? Or having their wife walk around on all fours on a lead with a ball in their mouth? If the act is a personally degrading act but not physically harmful should it be allowed in public? This goes into the idea behind the Blasphemy Laws as well.

I saw a guy wearing a swastike armband in Memphis airport a few years ago. I must admit it shocked me. But, on reflection, I still support their legal right to do so.

Of course you face the consequences of your choices - and on this occasion the guy was trying to hide behind a coke machine to avoid the two very large black men that seemed to be following him very closely.

robindch · 03-05-2010 10:36am

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

irishconvert wrote: »

Do you think that if a woman wants to wear Burqa, and is genuinely not being forced to wear it by her husband, father or anyone else, she should be allowed to do so?

Yes, of course.

However, what I have read about, and seen myself, in the many countries I've visited where islam is the dominant religion, plus my understanding of how religion operates, plus my understanding of the subtle as well as overt social conditioning and psychological manipulation carried out by islam -- and other religions too, lest you think that I'm unfairly picking on islam -- makes me believe quite firmly that there are few, if any, women who are strong and independent able to make this choice in a sincerely free and unencumbered way.

Permabear · 03-05-2010 10:52am

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 03-05-2010 11:00am

This post has been deleted.

citizen_p · 03-05-2010 11:08am

I'm religious and do not support the ban

i dont know the answer but have always wondered....how the feck do they get passports without a bloody photo. id say their might be burning of the beligian flag somwhere or another

Permabear · 03-05-2010 11:27am

This post has been deleted.

sonicthebadger* · 03-05-2010 11:52am

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

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree with much of what you say but it is unlikely a Muslim woman made a free decision to get married if her marraige was arranged by her father. Also we already ban polygamy which would be fine under Sharia law.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's not the argument being made in the slightest. But what's the point in protecting men from their ultra privilidged position within the Muslim religion. Though all Muslims may have beliefs which might be considered irrational, it is the women who suffer most at the hands of those beliefs.

Permabear · 03-05-2010 12:25pm

This post has been deleted.

MrPudding · 03-05-2010 12:56pm

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

cypharius wrote: »

My problem is that they're specifically targeting Muslims, I would be much happier if they banned balaclavas, and put burkhas in the same catagory.

I thin this is a misunderstanding. My understanding is that the ban is on any covering that blocks identification of people in public.

PDN wrote: »

An interesting bit in that link is the proposed penalty of four years jail time for anyone forcing a woman to wear a burka. Now that I heartily support.

Yes, I must say, I do like that. Can't imagine there will be many people prosecuted under it though.

MrP

MrPudding · 03-05-2010 12:59pm

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

irishconvert wrote: »

That assumes the men are forcing the women to wear it, and I have already told you I know a number of women who wear the burqa out of their own choice.

Do you know all woman that wear them?

MrP

Rev Hellfire · 03-05-2010 1:00pm

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

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

She is in and as of herself not.

But society must weight up her right to wear one against the rights of those denied a decision in the first place and its responsibly to protect them.
Like Robin I suspect the sizeable majority who do so are forced to do so, clearly the Belgian legislature also believe so as well.

MrPudding · 03-05-2010 1:15pm

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

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I am sure you know exactly what was meant here. So you have woman that want to wear it and woman that don't want to but are forced to. By giving up their right to wear it, the woman that do want to wear it are protecting the rights of the woman that don't. Or to look at it form the other side, if the wearing of the burka is allowed to continue the woman that want to wear it can wear it, but they do so at the expense of the rights of the woman that don't want to wear it.

The other point is how many woman actually want to wear it and what are their reasons for wanting to wear it? It is all very well pointing to a woman that says she wants to wear it, but where does this want come from?

MrP

Morbert · 03-05-2010 1:31pm

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

In the 1940s and 50s, Ireland banned books by F. Scott Fitzgerald, Robert Graves, Ernest Hemingway, and Somerset Maugham (among many others) on the basis that they had the potential to cause offense and damage public morality. Because this same card can be played anytime anyone encounters anything remotely objectionable, I'd rather not go back down that slippery slope by giving the government extensive powers to censor expression. If something is not causing any actual or demonstrable harm, there is simply no grounds for banning it.

It's entirely a different matter altogether. It is not about offending sensibilities, it is about protecting the rights of women as human beings. Definding the right to wear veils like the burqua is on par with defending the right to be beaten by husbands. Sure, some women might be ok with it, that doesn't make it a socially acceptable practise.

robindch · 03-05-2010 2:04pm

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

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And that's an unpardonably silly misinterpretation of what I wrote too

Many religious codes including sharia, and much as christianity did until fairly recently, legitimate the desire upon the part of unenlightened men to control women. This produces massive inequalities in educational attainment, economic power, rights within society at large, rights before the judiciary and so on. It has taken enormous political will to produce the relatively equitable society that we enjoy today, and it has done so against the obstructionist and combined wills of most if not all of the world's religions. So, it's quite reasonable for an enlightened country like Belgium to assert the rights not only of the tiny number who currently wear the veil, but as I said in my first post in this thread, to draw a firm line in the sand with respect to the encroachment of unenlightened religious doctrine over individual rights.

In order, as much as anything else, to avoid what's happening over the border in Holland which, in the last half century anyhow, has typically had a fairly relaxed attitude to permitting the religious to do as they wished. And now has to deal not only with an unpleasant resurgent islamic hegemony as documented by people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali but also the murders of people like Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn, events which have prompted a deeply antisocial and openly racist reaction lead by the inflammatory Geert Wilders.

It's in this context, and this context alone, that it's reasonable to enact a law which directly influences only a tiny minority in order to (a) assert the rights that they are almost certainly denied and (b) to prevent or reduce the chance of further encroachment and further, and much more divisive, trouble in the future.

To suggest that this debate revolves simply around the right of people to wear what they want is very naive.

.

sonicthebadger* · 03-05-2010 2:41pm

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

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't know where the calls for legal intervention are but they should be loud. I have a friend who is in the difficult position right now of either disowning her family and risking death (not kidding, wish I was) or going back to Iran to be married off. She is living here in Ireland at the moment.

On your second point, as I asked someone else here, I can be asked to remove my bike helmet at any time and will do so out of politeness, or if it's a Garda doing the asking out of compliance with the law. Can the same be said for a person wearing a burqa?

Permabear · 03-05-2010 2:59pm

This post has been deleted.

Burka ban

Comments