The Burka. Should wearing it be banned?

djpbarry

sparkling sea wrote: »

Women have fought hard for their rights, they have progressed further in western society for all sorts of reasons and allowing any traditions that would in anyway suggest that a women is a lesser being either covertly or overtly should be banned - full stop.

On that basis, you should probably be campaigning for a ban on housewives too.

ChocolateSauce

sparkling sea wrote: »

Wearing a burka should definitely be banned as its original purpose was to hide woman. It is a symbol of the desexualistion of women - why - because as with most religious symbols created by male dominated religions, the burka was used as a mechanism for restricting women - hiding them.

Women have fought hard for their rights, they have progressed further in western society for all sorts of reasons and allowing any traditions that would in anyway suggest that a women is a lesser being either covertly or overtly should be banned - full stop.

So your logic is they've fought hard for their rights, so you keep their rights you want to take away their rights?

anymore

The letter below from the Letters page of the Irish Times is relevant to the discussion :
The wearing of the niqab

• 
  Madam, – The wearing of the niqab cannot be justified on the basis of multiculturalism, as the Irish Council of Imams states (Home News, February 6th), any more than we can, in a civilised society, accept female circumcision, witchcraft, multiple wives, child sacrifice or child labour.
  Using tenuous, open-to-interpretation teachings from the Koran, the wearing of the niqab has been imposed on women. The penalty for not wearing it has often been extreme violence and cruelty. Out of empathy and support for the many victims of this violence we should not accept this practice in Ireland or any civilised country.
  The Irish Council of Imams also states we should allow the wearing of the niqab on the basis of encouraging integration. However, in conversation with someone wearing the niqab it is not possible to read and interpret facial expressions and so an unequal communication takes place. What is integrationist about that? – Yours, etc,
  JOHN FAULKNER,
  Ridgemont Avenue,
  Stockport,
  Cheshire,

anymore

djpbarry wrote: »

On that basis, you should probably be campaigning for a ban on housewives too.

You seem to be unaware that the pertinent point is that women now have a chioce in the matter of what roles they wish to play, whereas young girls on the verge of puberty have no choice in the waering of these garments. This garment is in effect a device which creates a form of ' internal exile'.

johngalway

Not only should it be banned, but a lot of nonsense brought about by hand wringing comfortably off left wing whingers, mainly the idea that WE need to adapt to foreign cultures here rather than the other way around really needs to be rolled back. If people want to live in Ireland it should be because it IS Ireland, not another country. Last day on the radio commentators were talking about how some aspects of Sharia law would be beneficial here.

Get a clue!

Nodin

The wearing of the niqab cannot be justified on the basis of multiculturalism, as the Irish Council of Imams states (Home News, February 6th), any more than we can, in a civilised society, accept female circumcision, witchcraft, multiple wives, child sacrifice or child labour.

I'm easy on witchcraft and multiple wives/husbands meself. Female circumcision is out, generally speaking, because many types of it constitute detrimental mutililation. There are however some forms which consist of just a small slit in the clitoral 'hood', which are actually less intrusive than male circumcision. These are not unknown in the west, though for different purposes.

Personally, I'm not seeing how a niqab is equivalent to child sacrifice or child labour.....Unless of course, theres some dark secret to the manafacture of the items that Mr Faulkner is privy to, denied to the rest of us.

djpbarry

anymore wrote: »

You seem to be unaware that the pertinent point is that women now have a chioce in the matter of what roles they wish to play, whereas young girls on the verge of puberty have no choice in the waering of these garments.

How do you know?

Nodin

johngalway wrote: »

Not only should it be banned, but a lot of nonsense brought about by hand wringing comfortably off left wing whingers,

O, to be well off.....

johngalway wrote: »

mainly the idea that WE need to adapt to foreign cultures here rather than the other way around really needs to be rolled back.

Saying that people can do much as they wish is our "culture" I thought.

johngalway wrote: »

Last day on the radio commentators were talking about how some aspects of Sharia law would be beneficial here.

Get a clue!

Look at any thread in AH after some crime or other. We liberal "whingers"
talk about proportionate punishment and the like, while the rest want limbs cut off and the death penalty.

sparkling sea

djpbarry wrote: »

On that basis, you should probably be campaigning for a ban on housewives too.

Housewife - whats a housewife - sorry you've lost me

My arguement is that true gender equality in all levels of society, the workforce, and politics has not yet reached an acceptable level, despite legislation that indicates the contrary. A burka is a symbol of oppression and although we may have our own symbols of oppression for example a nun wearing a veil, we have recognised the negative implications of these practices and they are being phased out because they are not tolerable anymore.

My belief is that women should not be disadvantaged by their sex, that they should be recognised as having human dignity equal to that of men, and that they should have the opportunity to live as fulfilling and freely chosen lives as men. Many women especially in western society see the burka as a symbol of suppression of women and this is intolerable.
Women have been and continue to be suppressed and have still not smashed the glass ceiling in many areas of life, we want to move forward not back, although I fully understand why a minority of men may have problem with this

sparkling sea

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

So your logic is they've fought hard for their rights, so you keep their rights you want to take away their rights?

No thats not my logic because thats not logically, however as you appear to think it is, it would be pointless to give you the logically conclusion of my arguement as you don't appear to grasp the concept of logic

anymore

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again I have to say that looking at the burqa in isolation is not especially useful. Look at some of the other religious/cultural practices you will find in communities that force the wearing of the burqa on young teenage grils, honour killings,FGm and forced marriages. There have been verified incidents of all these even in the UK which is a supposedly liberal country.

anymore

djpbarry wrote: »

How do you know?

try reading !

sparkling sea

GuanYin wrote: »

Whatever way you want to dress it up, the real reason that people object is because they want "them" to be more like "us". Assimilation is human nature and cultures are generally wary of other culture - "why would you want to live like that, when you can live like this?".QUOTE]

No assimilation is not the reason, progression is.

Women who wear veils traditionally come from communites were male domination is considered the norm. Oppression of women is their norm, no matter how subtle this oppression is its still oppression. Many people don't even know exactly why they wear a burka - for example, in Afganhastian up until the early 1980's the wearing of a burka had all but died in cities, the tradition had died, now it the norm and I am sure anyone discussing this issue knows why its the norm but not particularly why its the tradition. A study carried out by the Afgahan Womens Movement found that many women did not know why they had to wear a burka, except to hide themselves from men and many young girls who have now again grown up in this tradition think that it is prefectly right

Norms are very hard to break away from - but not all norms have a positive influence in society and that is why we need to progress as oppossed to assimilate.

nij

I see more and more people mentioning female genital mutilation. This has nothing to do with Islam and is utterly forbidden. Educate yourselves and stop watching Pat Condell's greatest hits volume 10.

sparkling sea

nij wrote: »

I see more and more people mentioning female genital mutilation. This has nothing to do with Islam and is utterly forbidden. Educate yourselves and stop watching Pat Condell's greatest hits volume 10.

What you are stating is not entirely accurate - The causes of female genital mutilation include a mix of cultural, religious and social factors within families and communities.

Though no religious scripts prescribe the practice, practitioners often believe the practice has religious support you are right, HOWEVER, religious leaders take varying positions with regard to FGM: some promote it, some consider it irrelevant to religion, and others contribute to its elimination.
In those Muslim countries where it is practice, FGM is often justified by a controversial saying attributed to the Prophet Mohammed that seem to favor sunna circumcision involving minor cutting of the clitoris. The authenticity of these sayings are unconfirmed, and some scholars have refuted them. Even if true, they only permit the practice; they do not mandate it.

Fatwas are published opinions by Muslim religious scholars. They are non-binding in law, but some Muslim believers are expected to follow them. In Egypt, a number of Fatwas have been issued by the influential Egyptian Fatwa Committee on FGM:

1949-MAY-28: They decided that it is not a sin to reject female circumcision.

1951-JUN-23: They stated that female circumcision is desirable because it curbs "nature" (i.e. sexual drive among women). It stated that medical concerns over the practice are irrelevant.

1981-JAN-29: The Great Sheikh of Al-Azhar (the most famous University of the Islamic World) stated that parents must follow the lessons of Mohammed and not listen to medical authorities because the latter often change their minds. Parents must do their duty and have their daughters circumcised.

Laminations

I cant take this thread seriously since Deirdre De Burca hit the news.

Anyway here is the summary of my argument again (only in someone elses words).
Its not simply preference based.
If you want to dispute bikinis as a legitimate form of covering, make an argument.
If you want to dispute Che Guevara tshirts, make an argument.
Hats? make an argument.
Head scarves? make an argument.

Its been tradition in Ireland for thousands of years not to cover the face (although there are specific occasions). Nonetheless, DF has tried to deny this.

donegalfella wrote: »

What "established traditions and values"? Established by whom? Enforced by whom?

But I agree tradition is not a solid enough argument, therefore I've given references (of psychological and behavioural economics studies) highlighting the importance of the face for society. If you want to discuss other forms of clothing, go make a separate argument.

Housewives? make a separate argument.

sparkling sea

Laminations wrote: »

I cant take this thread seriously since Deirdre De Burca hit the news.

Anyway here is the summary of my argument again (only in someone elses words).
Its not simply preference based.
If you want to dispute bikinis as a legitimate form of covering, make an argument.
If you want to dispute Che Guevara tshirts, make an argument.
Hats? make an argument.
Head scarves? make an argument.

Its been tradition in Ireland for thousands of years not to cover the face (although there are specific occasions). Nonetheless, DF has tried to deny this.


But I agree tradition is not a solid enough argument, therefore I've given references (of psychological and behavioural economics studies) highlighting the importance of the face for society. If you want to discuss other forms of clothing, go make a separate argument.

Housewives? make a separate argument.

All hail, all hail -;)

johngalway

Nodin wrote: »

O, to be well off.....



Saying that people can do much as they wish is our "culture" I thought.



Look at any thread in AH after some crime or other. We liberal "whingers"
talk about proportionate punishment and the like, while the rest want limbs cut off and the death penalty.

There's very little punishment for crime in this country. If you stub your toe when you were five and it left a bad impression it can almost get you off for murder when you're an adult. Yes, that is taking it a bit far, but it's not all that far from the truth when you hear of the sentences and reasons judges give, or the guy or girl who get's sent down after their first 75 offenses....

I am not well off.

You know what I mean by our culture. I wasn't referring to free speech or freedom to persue activities, all within the law - bad as it is. It won't be long before things like Christmas are described as offensive to someone or others culture and we'll be sanitised into "Happy Holiday" crap.

I'm all for foreign people living here. Lots of my family went abroad for work, England, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, USA. But, they worked, they fit in. What I object to is small groups, who no ones heard of continiously writing letters saying we need to be more sensitive to other cultures and to adapt to them. Sorry, we don't, this is Ireland. Learn to adapt to us, if they don't like it, Dublin airport is on the East side, Shannon on the West, Cork in the South, and Knock is usually fogged in.

djpbarry

sparkling sea wrote: »

Housewife - whats a housewife - sorry you've lost me

The concept of a housewife, or stay-at-home mother (or whatever description you want to use) is offensive to some, in that, for a time, this was regarded as the best a woman could hope for in life, was it not? My point is that there are a great number of things that individuals may find offensive – that is not a good reason to ban them.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Many women especially in western society see the burka as a symbol of suppression of women and this is intolerable.

Many women in western society see the brassiere as a symbol of oppression – should bras be banned on that basis?

anymore wrote: »

Look at some of the other religious/cultural practices you will find in communities that force the wearing of the burqa on young teenage grils, honour killings,FGm and forced marriages.

Will a ban on burqa-wearing alleviate these problems?

Laminations

djpbarry wrote: »

My point is that there are a great number of things that individuals may find offensive – that is not a good reason to ban them.

No, you need to formulate an argument, with reference to research. Try and make a case for housewives or bikinis.

People wearing 'go f*** yourself' tshirts might offend me but I couldn't form an argument to restrict this freedom of expression. Do you think faces are important? I'm sure someone with prosopagnosia would love to argue with you on this.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johngalway

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The point of that escapes me.

sparkling sea

djpbarry wrote: »

The concept of a housewife, or stay-at-home mother (or whatever description you want to use) is offensive to some, in that, for a time, this was regarded as the best a woman could hope for in life, was it not? My point is that there are a great number of things that individuals may find offensive – that is not a good reason to ban them.
Many women in western society see the brassiere as a symbol of oppression – should bras be banned on that basis?
Will a ban on burqa-wearing alleviate these problems?

The concept of the stay at home wife was rooted in the Irish Constitution and this element of the Constitution is widely regarded as discriminatory and in need of change

You are not putting forward any kind of arguement here - a great number of things are banned because people find them offensive or because they are discriminatory. In my opinion the reason why a burka should be banned is because its discriminatory and it would be wrong to adopt a discriminatory practice.

I don't agree that many women in Western society see a bra as a symbol of oppression either, although you will always find someone who does - big breasted women would have really bad backs if they couldn't wear a bra.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Victor

"The Burka. Should wearing it be banned" - its OK, she resigned from the Seanad today. :pac:

sparkling sea

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Tradition can compel women to wear a burka, without the need for the state to do so, this also compels the whole of a society to become desensatised to the very reason this practice exists. Even worse it can force an ever evolving society to accept to take a step backwards instead of striving to move forward in ensuring fundemental rights for all members of society

Regulating what people wear especially when they do so in a prejudicial and inequitable way is wrong but equally allowing a garment to be worn that is discriminatory to one gender is also wrong.

A balancing of rights is needed and my right and wish being the same as that of the most Irish women (and men) to live in a society that aims to rid said society of discriminatory norms and traditions must balanced against the right of a much smaller sector of society to uphold dicriminatory norms and values.

Only under the circumstances of not violating individual permissible autonomy can preventive intervention in the form of paternalistically motivated harm principle can be justified. In Irish society the wearing of a veil for the purpose of oppression is not permissible and in balancing the rights of everyone in society it is rational to conclude that is oppressive and discriminatory practice should be outlawed because of the overall harm it causes.

Nodin

djpbarry wrote: »

Many women in western society see the brassiere as a symbol of oppression – should bras be banned on that basis?

Plus the torture devices called 'heels'. Seems to be a sort of a portable Lough Derg experience for them....

Sand

I think it comes down to a question of if you believe wearing a tarpaulin is an expression of a free thinking, confident woman or merely a symptom of peer pressures where women are forced to comply with the demands of their male relatives.

I dont know if there is a minimum age on joining the nuns, I doubt there is a minimum age on your father forcing you to dress up like the KKK before you leave the house.

Theres an argument for respecting peoples own freedoms of free expression, but whose freedoms are we respecting? The young girls rights or the families right to indoctrinate the young girl into a certain, almost predestined marginalisation in society?

Someone has already posted the hilarious story of the bearded bride, but that reveals the underlying craziness....a guy marries a girl without even knowing even the most basic details about her because she walks about in a tarpaulin. Thats what the Bruka is...a wall to ensure women cannot interact with the outside world so they cannot embarrass their male relatives.

Maybe its their right to be marginalised. But its not their right to ensure their children are similarly indoctinated into marginalisation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce

Donegalfella wrote:

A parent has the right to exercise control over what his or her child wears. Most teenage girls will at some point hear a variant of the classic, "You're not going out wearing that, young lady!" This is understood to be a parental prerogative. So where do we draw the line, legally speaking? If a parent can insist that a daughter cover her cleavage and upper legs, why not the rest of her?

I think there must be a line drawn at some point- I don't think a parent should have a right to tell their child what to wear. There is certainly a very real danger (in the context of this thread) that a parent could force his daughter to wear a Burka, which is IMO worse than being told they can't wear it.

I recognise that there are practical limitations here (such as it being less an issue with young children), but the law shouldn't support the right of parents to dictate certain matters like this. Parents are the guardians of their children, not the owners.