The Burka. Should wearing it be banned?

wes

anymore wrote: »

What you are ignoring is that there tends to be a clustering effect, so tyipcally, in an irish city, the immigrant population tends to be concentrated in certain areas - those areas with a hight proportion of rental properties for example. So even a minority of the population clustered in a small number of concentrated areas tends to have a pronounced effect on the whole population living in the area. For example, the Wilton of area of Cork, where i lived for a number of years, is one of those areas where the proportion of immigrants to the indigenous population is much higher than the national average.

Fair enough, but if only a minority in that area actually wear the Burqa, then how can it have the kind of effect you seem to think it does. Again, we are talking about a minority of a minority here. Even with people clustered together, very few will wear the Burqa.

anymore wrote: »

I am not the most sociable of people, but even I would occassionally pass a few comments when standing in queues to strangers. I would feel very reluctant to do so with a woman wearing a burqa partly because it appears to be such a 'segragating device' and partly because I would be reluctant to cause hassle for the lady in the event that her husband or male companion would take it as a display of impropriety on the woman's part if she replied.
The burqa causes an automatic ' self -censoring' device to kick in ! :(

How often do you encounter this situation as a matter of interest? I can't say I rarely run into Burqa clad Women, and there are plenty of Halaal shops near me, and I visit them regularly to buy meat etc, and I regularly eat in Halaal restaurants, and rarely encounter anyone wearing a Burqa.

anymore wrote: »

Perhaps you care to comment on my remark's about 'God's design'.

Its not the Religion forum so won't bother.

**EDIT**
Also, I personally think the Burqa is silly, but that people have the right to wear it if they choose to do so.

anymore

[.

Its not the Religion forum so won't bother.

**EDIT**
Also, I personally think the Burqa is silly, but that people have the right to wear it if they choose to do so.

[/QUOTE]

Well the reason I raise the issue of God's design is that the origins of the compulsion to wear the burqa are linked to religion one way or the other. If it is not mandated by the Quran ( which most people seem to agree it is not) then not wearing it seems to be deemed offensive to God's sensibilities regarding modesty. Which is why I asked the question, frivolous as it may seem, is it the contention that God's own design as regards women's faces being visible is somehow flawed ?
There must be some specific reason as to why a whole class of women are required to wear the burqa. What is it and what are its origins.
The fact that there are health issues to be explored from the result of prolonged wearing of the burqa, and ones which impact on pregnant women and their children make this not just a religious/cultural and political issue, but a health one as well.

As I have siad before, the burqa is not just an item of clothing but it is a symbol of male oppression.

sparkling sea

wes wrote: »

So even if the Burqa is a barrier to communcation, the numbers effect are tiny, and the effect on communication minimal. If there are issues with communication, it has nothing to do with the Burqa, as so few wear the thing in the first place.

My issue is that considering the numbers wearing the Burqa, its banning would have minimal impact on helping communciation, and I don't see it having much impact as it is.

But what about the impact acceptance of a burka has in country that is very unequal as it is. My main concern is not allowing for the rolling back of mindset that existed in this country for hundreds of years. Why do I have to suffer from the secondary victimisation because of the law of unintended consequences. Unlike many liberal democracies, religion had a huge impact in this country because of this true gender equality on all levels of society, the workforce, and politics has not yet reached an acceptable level, despite legislation that indicates the contrary.

The hurdles the women’s movements have overcome in recent years must be protected as the treasures they truly are, treasures for both men and women. We might even be on the way to Constitutional change allowing true gender equality.

The idea of legislating for direct harm is fine by me, the idea legislating for indirect harm does cause me problems. But to be honest, I have come to the stage where I feel positive action is needed regarding gender inequality. I am even in favour of positive discrimination in some areas - an ideal that was an absolute no no to me a few years ago.

As a women I a tired of tradition both my own and other peoples holding me back - I do not want to import any tradition that allows for and/or accepts discrimination against my sex either primarily or secondarily. I want my rights upheld. I want true equality - I don’t want acceptance of practices that hinder true equality.

We would not accept symbols of inequality for any other group in society, and I fully understand why men do not want to give up the power - why would they. But to be honest the argument that it respecting the rights of women to allow for the burka is a nonsense. If people were really committed to upholding and respecting the rights of all people, this discussion wouldn't even be necessary . The message the burka sends is so offensive, and contrary to progressive views about women, sexuality, the body and so on that to me it just shouldn't be tolerated by rational people. Can I just qualify that by saying that as a rational person I do not think that force should be used to remove something either nor do I think victims of an accepted custom should be criminalised. The penalty imposed would need to be revolutionary - I don't have an answer to what it should be.

wes

anymore wrote: »

Well the reason I raise the issue of God's design is that the origins of the compulsion to wear the burqa are linked to religion one way or the other. If it is not mandated by the Quran ( which most people seem to agree it is not) then not wearing it seems to be deemed offensive to God's sensibilities regarding modesty. Which is why I asked the question, frivolous as it may seem, is it the contention that God's own design as regards women's faces being visible is somehow flawed ?

I have no clue either way. Best to ask someone who actually support wearing the Burqa, or someone who wears it.

anymore wrote: »

There must be some specific reason as to why a whole class of women are required to wear the burqa. What is it and what are its origins.
The fact that there are health issues to be explored from the result of prolonged wearing of the burqa, and ones which impact on pregnant women and their children make this not just a religious/cultural and political issue, but a health one as well.

Well, the vast majority of the discussion here has had little to do with health thus far, and I would like to point we do no legislate against binge drinking which messes up people health as well for instance, and we still haven't banned smoking etc. So there is precedence for letting people do stuff that will harm them.

anymore wrote: »

As I have siad before, the burqa is not just an item of clothing but it is a symbol of male oppression.

Yes, and some people say the same of Bra's.

sparkling sea

wes wrote: »

Fair enough, but if only a minority in that area actually wear the Burqa, then how can it have the kind of effect you seem to think it does. Again, we are talking about a minority of a minority here. Even with people clustered together, very few will wear the Burqa. [/QUOTE}

The minority agruement doesn't stand up, I would suggest you look across the pond, where the same arguement was put forward some time ago. But it has been suggested by sociologists that the implications and acceptance of the burka - which is a recent phenomonem in Western societies has negatively impacted on freedoms of women within these communities.

wes

sparkling sea wrote: »

But what about the impact acceptance of a burka has in country that is very unequal as it is. My main concern is not allowing for the rolling back of mindset that existed in this country for hundreds of years. Why do I have to suffer from the secondary victimisation because of the law of unintended consequences. Unlike many liberal democracies, religion had a huge impact in this country because of this true gender equality on all levels of society, the workforce, and politics has not yet reached an acceptable level, despite legislation that indicates the contrary.

Sorry, but your not making any sense here. Someone wearing a Burqa doesn't hurt you, and it doesn't hurt society. At best it hurts the person wearing it. Also, someone wearing a Burqa doesn't roll anything back at all, and I honestly find it odd that you have come to such a conclusion.

Also, your view of what is right on Women who want to wear a Burqa. If they want to wear the Burqa that should be there choice, in the same way as a Woman should have the choice to wear high heels or short skirt. Its none of my or anyone else business with either of them.

Now if someone tries to force you to wear one, they should be tossed in a small jail cell for a very long time.

sparkling sea wrote: »

The hurdles the women’s movements have overcome in recent years must be protected as the treasures they truly are, treasures for both men and women. We might even be on the way to Constitutional change allowing true gender equality.

Again, I fail to see how allowing Women who choose to wear the Burqa to wear one, has any effect on this whatsoever.

sparkling sea wrote: »

The idea of legislating for direct harm is fine by me, the idea legislating for indirect harm does cause me problems. But to be honest, I have come to the stage where I feel positive action is needed regarding gender inequality. I am even in favour of positive discrimination in some areas - an ideal that was an absolute no no to me a few years ago.

I personally fail to see how the Burqa harms other personally, and if you are talking about the person wearing themselves harming themselves, well you could argue that a person eating in Mc Donalds is also self harming. So should be ban that as well? Seeing as those eating it are self harming, and it harms society by making us all fatter, and puts a strain on medical service, due to obesity related illnesses?

sparkling sea wrote: »

As a women I a tired of tradition both my own and other peoples holding me back - I do not want to import any tradition that allows for and/or accepts discrimination against my sex either primarily or secondarily. I want my rights upheld. I want true equality - I don’t want acceptance of practices that hinder true equality.

Again, a Woman wearing a Burqa doesn't harm your rights in anyway. Just, because you repeat it several times does not make it true.

sparkling sea wrote: »

We would not accept symbols of inequality for any other group in society, and I fully understand why men do not want to give up the power - why would they. But to be honest the argument that it respecting the rights of women to allow for the burka is a nonsense. If people were really committed to upholding and respecting the rights of all people, this discussion wouldn't even be necessary . The message the burka sends is so offensive, and contrary to progressive views about women, sexuality, the body and so on that to me it just shouldn't be tolerated by rational people. Can I just qualify that by saying that as a rational person I do not think that force should be used to remove something either nor do I think victims of an accepted custom should be criminalised. The penalty imposed would need to be revolutionary - I don't have an answer to what it should be.

So, basically you want to tell another group of Women what to do, as they aren't doing what you think they should be doing. Again, these Women should have the choice whether to wear a Burqa or not.

Also, so what if you find the Burqa offensive. Should we now ban offensive things then? Sure maybe we should leave that Blasphemy law alone, as it stop people being offended.

wes

sparkling sea wrote: »

The minority agruement doesn't stand up, I would suggest you look across the pond, where the same arguement was put forward some time ago. But it has been suggested by sociologists that the implications and acceptance of the burka - which is a recent phenomonem in Western societies has negatively impacted on freedoms of women within these communities.

Ok, so how exactly will banning the Burqa help these Women then? I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the Burqa is just a sympton, and that by focusing on a sympton, you don't offer a solution at all.

Also, I fail to see how this effects wider society, and you don't provide any number on how many are actually effected by this, and how many wear a Burqa voluntarily or are force. Of course, none of this will be forthcoming as per usual.

anymore

wes wrote: »

I have no clue either way. Best to ask someone who actually support wearing the Burqa, or someone who wears it.



Well, the vast majority of the discussion here has had little to do with health thus far, and I would like to point we do no legislate against binge drinking which messes up people health as well for instance, and we still haven't banned smoking etc. So there is precedence for letting people do stuff that will harm them.



Yes, and some people say the same of Bra's.

Wes, whilst I am impressed by your modesty in saying you don't have a clue as to the origins of the wearing of the burqa, I see from the number of threads that you have posted on issues relating to Islam, that you probably qualify as an expert on Islam. I was particularly impressed by the Guardian statement that you posted on the Saudi women's appeal for legal rights in which you said :
"..However, a cultural and sports boycott could at least let the Saudi regime know, what we think of there system of gender apartheid. It may not initially do much, but it could perhaps wear them down over time.
Indeed my reason for supporting a ban on burqas is to let ' them' know what we think of gender apartheid'.
That is quite a wonderful expression,isn't it : ' Gender apartheid'. It manages to link the oppression of the burqa with the apartheid of the South African and Rhodesia regimes and the racial apartheid of the Southern States of America.
It seems to me to be fundamental to this issue to understand the origins of this practice, don't you agree ?
Thanks also for raising the smoking issue; we have of course legislated to ban smoking in enclosed public places - is there a lesson here for burqa wearing ?

anymore

wes wrote: »

Ok, so how exactly will banning the Burqa help these Women then? I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the Burqa is just a sympton, and that by focusing on a sympton, you don't offer a solution at all.

Also, I fail to see how this effects wider society, and you don't provide any number on how many are actually effected by this, and how many wear a Burqa voluntarily or are force. Of course, none of this will be forthcoming as per usual.

Wes, by highlighting a symptom, you are getting people to focus on the underlying problem as this thread has managed to do so very well.

wes

anymore wrote: »

Wes, whilst I am impressed by your modesty in saying you don't have a clue as to the origins of the wearing of the burqa, I see from the number of threads that you have posted on issues relating to Islam, that you probably qualify as an expert on Islam. I was particularly impressed by the Guardian statement that you posted on the Saudi women's appeal for legal rights in which you said :
"..However, a cultural and sports boycott could at least let the Saudi regime know, what we think of there system of gender apartheid. It may not initially do much, but it could perhaps wear them down over time.
Indeed my reason for supporting a ban on burqas is to let ' them' know what we think of gender apartheid'.

The problem is that you don't actually help anyone with the ban. You just take away a visual manifestation of oppression from some Women, and take a right away from other Women. A ban changes nothing, and doesn't help anyone. I see such a ban as ultimately pointless, as it doesn't change a thing imho, it just make it less visible and thats about it.

Boycotting the Saudi regime, would make more sense, as they don't offer Women a choice, where as the West does, at least right now, and that what is should be about ultimately choice. You aren't sending a message to Saudi Arabia, beyond that the West isn't as free as they claim, and to them it will be a "I Told You So" moment, but ultimately, what happen in Saudi Arabi should have no bearing on our own laws imho.

anymore wrote: »

That is quite a wonderful expression,isn't it : ' Gender apartheid'. It manages to link the oppression of the burqa with the apartheid of the South African and Rhodesia regimes and the racial apartheid of the Southern States of America.

Your being remarkable reductive actually. Forcing Women to wear a Burqa is just one manifestation of the crap those regimes pull. By focusing on one part of things, and that some how the banning it here will change things aborad is naive imho.

anymore wrote: »

It seems to me to be fundamental to this issue to understand the origins of this practice, don't you agree ?

Well, I don't have a lot of knowledge on the subject either way, and I don't think understanding the origins matters all that much really. I have no clue about the origins of cigarettes, but can still tell you they kill.

anymore wrote: »

Thanks also for raising the smoking issue; we have of course legislated to ban smoking in enclosed public places - is there a lesson here for burqa wearing ?

2nd hand smoke kills. Seeing someone wearing a Burqa doesn't. So I don't see what lesson we can possibly learn. Also, notice that we didn't ban smoking out right either, just in certain instances where it would hurt others.

wes

anymore wrote: »

Wes, by highlighting a symptom, you are getting people to focus on the underlying problem as this thread has managed to do so very well.

Once the sympton is gone, people will think the problem is gone, as they will only associate it with that sympton. This is how it works with the general public. Also, by banning it you take away freedom from people who genuinlly want to wear due to there beliefs.

I would liken banning the Burqa with using a tank to hammer a nail, in that it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Scrambled egg

Yes ban Deirdre De Burca!

ChocolateSauce

Laminations wrote: »

Discriminatory? How?

Because drink and drug laws oppress everyone equally!

Face covering dehumanises public spaces, do you disagree? Do you disagree that it negatively affects trust and cooperation? Covering up faces is to me like bordering up houses. It creates an air of trepidation and distrust that is unhealthy for a community

It isn't up to the community what it's members decide to do with themselves. If my next door neighbour (who is a nun) came around and said she had a problem with my lifestyle, that my lack of respect for religion created and air of trepidation and distrust which was unhealthy for the local Catholic community, and that the people with whom I choose to associate with were whores and junkies, I'd have some less than pleasent words for her, but in short I'd advise her in no uncertain terms that it wasn't her business and to F*** ***.

Public spaces are not the private realm of this "community" you keep citing. I'm not a member, that's for sure.

Men and women can be oppressed in a country like ours because of their family traditons, religious traditions, culture.

True, but some authority assigning itself the right to decide what is and isn't oppressive is just going to lead to trouble. How long until it tries to label dissidents as terrorists or rebels?

Laminations

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Because drink and drug laws oppress everyone equally!

Same with a face covering restriction, I couldnt cover my face habitually in certain places the same way you couldnt or a muslim couldnt. Just like you cant drink in certain places whether you drink or not.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It isn't up to the community what it's members decide to do with themselves.

Unless the behaviour is harmful to the community. And each behaviour needs to be argued separately which people here seem unable to do, continually dragging in hats or heels or bras. I'll drag in some other behavious...I cant drink a can of beer in public, nor would people turn a blind eye if I sliced up my face in public. I cant show my balls in public. There are plenty of restrictions for what I cant do and what I cant show in public. Why? Because its been argued that these activities harm society as a whole as well as the do-er (although its not necessary for harm to be done to the do-er for restrictions to be in place e.g. having one beer or showing my balls wouldn't harm me - the values of society supercede my individual rights to do what I please)

Laminations

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

True, but some authority assigning itself the right to decide what is and isn't oppressive is just going to lead to trouble. How long until it tries to label dissidents as terrorists or rebels?

Some authority? It would be the government and they are elected and I would want to see a referendum on it, not just a guilotined bill. And if the referendum said that we should have no restrictions on face covering in public then fine, thats democracy. The rest of your argument is slippery slope stuff. How long til it tries to label dissidents as terrorists? 'Try' would be the appropriate word and fail would be the outcome. You are suggesting a simple and specific restriction would lead to a police state?

sparkling sea

wes wrote: »

Sorry, but your not making any sense here. Someone wearing a Burqa doesn't hurt you, and it doesn't hurt society. At best it hurts the person wearing it. Also, someone wearing a Burqa doesn't roll anything back at all, and I honestly find it odd that you have come to such a conclusion.

I personally fail to see how the Burqa harms other personally, and if you are talking about the person wearing themselves harming themselves, well you could argue that a person eating in Mc Donalds is also self harming. So should be ban that as well? Seeing as those eating it are self harming, and it harms society by making us all fatter, and puts a strain on medical service, due to obesity related illnesses?

Again, a Woman wearing a Burqa doesn't harm your rights in anyway. Just, because you repeat it several times does not make it true.

Sorry you’re making no sense here, I know very patronising isn't it. You are also showing a major lack of understanding of both the overt and covert harms caused by the burqa to the wearer, women, men, children, communities and society at large.

Just because you are not affected by these harms does not mean they don't exist. What does and doesn't harm someone is a subjective, meaning the individual is the person how knows whether or not they are being harmed. You may think this is not harmful to me but I know that it is, your surmising, I am stating a fact.

It’s widely accepted that a burka is a tool of oppression, tools of oppression are harmful substantively and in many ancillary ways. Just because you ignore it doesn’t mean it’s not true.
Discussions about the harm the burka causes to women, the women’s movement and society at large is taking place all over the world. Governments are even discussing it.

The Taliban use it as a weapon to imprison and crush women - I suppose you don’t see this as harmful either. Just because the harm caused appears to be by you admission beyond your compression doesn't mean it’s not harmful, it just means you fall to understand why it is harmful or the harm it causes.

You can refuse to accept the harm caused to society, take a look at the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) then tell me the burka is not harmful to society. Afghan women state "The burqa – so uncomfortable with all that weight of fabric affixed to the tight skullcap – muffles sensory perceptions, causing women to stumble and fall, never being able to see their own feet, the world dimly viewed through an embroidered slit."

RAWA further posits "There is no religious justification for the burqa. It is entirely a product of paternalism and patriarchy, males asserting their ownership of females – what only they are entitled to see in the privacy of the family home. But the burqa, more than the chador or the veil, is infantilizing as well, like a newborn's swaddling. By wearing it, women are constricted and controlled, and this hindrance is not just symbolic. It's evoked in every burdened step a female takes." If you can't reasonably understand the problem then you can't reasonably understand the problem.

anymore

sparkling sea wrote: »

Sorry you’re making no sense here, I know very patronising isn't it. You are also showing a major lack of understanding of both the overt and covert harms caused by the burqa to the wearer, women, men, children, communities and society at large.

Just because you are not affected by these harms does not mean they don't exist. What does and doesn't harm someone is a subjective, meaning the individual is the person how knows whether or not they are being harmed. You may think this is not harmful to me but I know that it is, your surmising, I am stating a fact.

It’s widely accepted that a burka is a tool of oppression, tools of oppression are harmful substantively and in many ancillary ways. Just because you ignore it doesn’t mean it’s not true.
Discussions about the harm the burka causes to women, the women’s movement and society at large is taking place all over the world. Governments are even discussing it.

The Taliban use it as a weapon to imprison and crush women - I suppose you don’t see this as harmful either. Just because the harm caused appears to be by you admission beyond your compression doesn't mean it’s not harmful, it just means you fall to understand why it is harmful or the harm it causes.

You can refuse to accept the harm caused to society, take a look at the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) then tell me the burka is not harmful to society. Afghan women state "The burqa – so uncomfortable with all that weight of fabric affixed to the tight skullcap – muffles sensory perceptions, causing women to stumble and fall, never being able to see their own feet, the world dimly viewed through an embroidered slit."

RAWA further posits "There is no religious justification for the burqa. It is entirely a product of paternalism and patriarchy, males asserting their ownership of females – what only they are entitled to see in the privacy of the family home. But the burqa, more than the chador or the veil, is infantilizing as well, like a newborn's swaddling. By wearing it, women are constricted and controlled, and this hindrance is not just symbolic. It's evoked in every burdened step a female takes." If you can't reasonably understand the problem then you can't reasonably understand the problem.

Spoken by women for women !

sparkling sea

anymore wrote: »

[/B]

Spoken by women for women !

And that is why women should decide whether this is harmful to them.

I don't think that things that cause offense should be banned but the should not be allowed in societies that have little understanding of the harm it can cause

ChocolateSauce

Laminations wrote: »

Some authority? It would be the government and they are elected and I would want to see a referendum on it, not just a guilotined bill. And if the referendum said that we should have no restrictions on face covering in public then fine, thats democracy. The rest of your argument is slippery slope stuff. How long til it tries to label dissidents as terrorists? 'Try' would be the appropriate word and fail would be the outcome. You are suggesting a simple and specific restriction would lead to a police state?

If democracy overturns essential liberty, then something (the courts) should overturn democracy. It has been done many times in many countries, almost always with positive effects for liberty, which is far more important.

sparkling sea

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

If democracy overturns essential liberty, then something (the courts) should overturn democracy. It has been done many times in many countries, almost always with positive effects for liberty, which is far more important.

But you can't have real liberty unless you have real equality

Daftendirekt

sparkling sea wrote: »

And that is why women should decide whether this is harmful to them.

Maybe I'm confusing you with another poster, but weren't you just arguing in favour of the ban?

anymore

wes wrote: »

What other countries do is neither here nor there, and quite frankly irrelevant to laws in this country.

If Iran does dodgy crap, then we really shouldn't choose to emulate them. I always find this a silly position. Well Iran does.... so we can now be just as intolerant as they are. Personally, I don't want to descend to there level, but apparently many here do for some odd reason.

Also, there many Muslim majority countries. For instance you can get Alchohol and don't have to wear a Hijab in Turkey. So picking a single example to justify you whatabouterry, also assumes Muslims are a single undifferentiating entity, which is untrue.

If turkey is to be quoted as a tolerant Muslim country, then lets see what do
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
According to the UN in 2002:
"The report of the Special Rapporteur ... concerning cultural practices in the family that are violent towards women (E/CN.4/2002/83), indicated that honour killings had been reported in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Yemen, and other Mediterranean and Persian Gulf countries, and that they had also taken place in western countries such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom, within migrant communities."[13][14] There is a strong positive correlation between violence against women, and women's social power and equality; and a baseline of development, associated with access to basic resources, health care, and human capital, such as literacy - as research by Richard G. Wilkinson shows. In a male dominated society, there is more inequality between men, and women lose out not just physically and economically, but crucially because men who feel subordinated will often try to regain a sense of their authority in turn by excessive subordination of those below them, ie women. (Interestingly, he says that in male-dominated societies, not only do women suffer more violence, and worse health: but so do men.)[15]
According to Widney Brown, advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, the practice "goes across cultures and across religions."[16]
URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&action=edit&section=4"][COLOR=#0066cc]edit[/COLOR][/URL Europe

In 2005 Der Spiegel magazine reports: 'In the past four months, six Muslim women living in Berlin have been brutally murdered by family members', and goes on to cover the case of Hatun Sürücü - killed by her brother for not staying with her husband of forced marriage, but of 'living like a German'. Precise statistics on how many women die every year in such honor killings are hard to come by, as many crimes are never reported, said Myria Boehmecke of the Tuebingen-based women's group Terre des Femmes which, among other things, tries to protect Muslim girls and women from oppressive families. The Turkish women's organization Papatya has documented 40 instances of honor killings in Germany since 1996.[17][18]
Hatun Sürücü's brother and murderer, was convicted of murder and jailed for nine years and three months by a German court in 2006.[19]
In March 2009, Turkish immigrant Gülsüm S. was killed for a relationship outside her family's plan for an arranged marriage.[20]
Every year in the UK, a dozen women are victims of honor killings, occurring almost exclusively to date within Asian and Middle Eastern families[21] and often cases are unresolved due to the unwillingness of family, relatives and communities to testify. A 2006 BBC poll for the Asian network in the UK found that 1 in 10 of the 500 young Asians polled said that they could condone the murder of someone who dishonored their family[22] In the UK, in December 2005, Nazir Afzal, Director, West London, of Britain's Crown Prosecution Service, stated that the United Kingdom has seen "at least a dozen honour killings" between 2004 and 2005.[23] While precise figures do not exist for the perpetrators' cultural backgrounds, Diana Nammi of the UK's Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation is reported to have said:"about two-thirds are Muslim. Yet they can also be Hindu, Sikh and even eastern European."[24]
Another well known case was of Heshu Yones, who was stabbed to death by her father in London in 2002, when her family heard a love song dedicated to her and suspected she had a boyfriend.[25] Another girl suffered a similar fate in Turkey.[26]


Turkey was also the location for the girl who was buried alive by her father because she had male friends;
:http://www.montrealgazette.com/Girl+buried+alive+honour+killing+Turkey+Report/2521342/story.html

I dont apologise for saying again that the entire sytmem that includes burqa wearing as a requirement needs to be looked at and not just the burqa itself.
Surely in ireland we have learned the lesson of allowing religous, cultural/religous practices to go without question.

wes

sparkling sea wrote: »

Sorry you’re making no sense here, I know very patronising isn't it. You are also showing a major lack of understanding of both the overt and covert harms caused by the burqa to the wearer, women, men, children, communities and society at large.

Patronize away, doesn't bother me.

**EDIT**
Btw, I wasn't trying to be patronizing. I honestly didn't understand what you were saying. It didn't (and still does not) make any sense to me. My intent was not to patronize, but to communicate that I did not get your position and nothing else. Apologies if I came off as patronizing.
**EDIT**

You seem to like making assumptions about my position. I certainly accept a lot of what you say, and yet you keep stating these things, as if I don't accept them, which is really odd.

I fail to see how Burqa damage Western societies. In societies where it is force upon Women, i could certainly see it doing so, but it isn't done here.

As for it causing harm to Women who wear them, no disagreements here. Still, there right to wear them. Still have a right to smoke. Still have a right to eat Mc Donalds. Things which are also harmful.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Just because you are not affected by these harms does not mean they don't exist. What does and doesn't harm someone is a subjective, meaning the individual is the person how knows whether or not they are being harmed. You may think this is not harmful to me but I know that it is, your surmising, I am stating a fact.

**EDIT**
I fail to see how it harms you personally. Honestly, I don't understand how someone elses choice in clothing can possibly harm someone else, unless they have spikes sticking out of them and they run into people or something.

Ok so your harmed by the Burqa, so it should banned fair enough. Now, Muslims are harmed by cartoons of Muhammad, so they should be banned then? How about fatty foods, they harm people who can't watch what they eat, so lets ban them too then. Sure, we can have a field day with this one. Anyone who feels something harms them, can now have it banned.
**EDIT**

sparkling sea wrote: »

It’s widely accepted that a burka is a tool of oppression, tools of oppression are harmful substantively and in many ancillary ways. Just because you ignore it doesn’t mean it’s not true.

The Burqa can be a tool of oppression certainly, but some Women wear them voluntary as well. You see I am not ignoring anything at all actually, but please go right on thinking whatever you like, regardless of it being true or not.

You can choose to ignore this fact, but some Woman want to wear them. I fail to see what right you have to tell other Women what to wear, or how to be liberated. Thats up to them ultimately.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Discussions about the harm the burka causes to women, the women’s movement and society at large is taking place all over the world. Governments are even discussing it.

Yes, they are. Lots of things harm people, and we don't ban them.

sparkling sea wrote: »

The Taliban use it as a weapon to imprison and crush women - I suppose you don’t see this as harmful either. Just because the harm caused appears to be by you admission beyond your compression doesn't mean it’s not harmful, it just means you fall to understand why it is harmful or the harm it causes.

Now, Women being forced to wear Burqas is wrong, and i have stated this already, and yet you choose to ignore this fact (all the while accusing me or ignoring facts), as you would rather paint me as someone who doesn't see the harm in the Taliban, whom I never mentioned either, oddly enough. Very odd thing to say, seeing as I am very much against forcing people to wear things they don't want, but instead of reading my posts you construct one lengthy straw man instead.

Now to address your point. The Taliban are terrible people, and forcing Women to wear a Burqa is harmful, which btw I was not talking about, but that you chose to ascribe this position to me in anyways.

However, letting Women choose to wear one or not is not the same thing. If you can't tell the difference between the 2 positions, thats your problem not mine.

sparkling sea wrote: »

You can refuse to accept the harm caused to society, take a look at the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) then tell me the burka is not harmful to society. Afghan women state "The burqa – so uncomfortable with all that weight of fabric affixed to the tight skullcap – muffles sensory perceptions, causing women to stumble and fall, never being able to see their own feet, the world dimly viewed through an embroidered slit."

Wow, this keeps getting better and better. I post about the West, and you talk about Afghaniistan instead. How about addressing things i say, as opposed to what you wish was said.

I am amazed that you think that forcing Women to wear a Burqa is the same as letting Women choose whether than too wear one or not. Honestly, fantastic straw man argument you have construted.

sparkling sea wrote: »

RAWA further posits "There is no religious justification for the burqa. It is entirely a product of paternalism and patriarchy, males asserting their ownership of females – what only they are entitled to see in the privacy of the family home. But the burqa, more than the chador or the veil, is infantilizing as well, like a newborn's swaddling. By wearing it, women are constricted and controlled, and this hindrance is not just symbolic. It's evoked in every burdened step a female takes." If you can't reasonably understand the problem then you can't reasonably understand the problem.

You see, I wasn't talking about Afghanistan, where the Taliban forced Women to wear the Burqa. Now if you can't actually engage with what I actually say, then there is no way I can possibly reasonably reply to you.

You have basically taken a completely different situation, in Afghanistan and some how you think I wouldn't notice. I was clearly talking about banning the Burqa in the West. I never said I was in favour of people wearing the Burqa. I have stated I don't like it, but that Women should have the right to choose to wear it if they want. I never supported it being forced on someone, which is most definetly harmful and I never said forcing some to wear a Burqa isn't harmful either, but instead of addressing what I said, you construct a lengthy straw man instead.

**EDIT**
Now I will certiainly agree that forcing people to wear a Burqa will harm society, but that was not what I was talking about. I was talking about letting people choose wheather they wish to wear one or not, which is a completely different situation, and I fail to see how allowing such a choice will hurt society, and I have yet to see anyone provide any evidence to show that allowing such a choice will some how harm society.
**EDIT**

wes

anymore wrote: »

If turkey is to be quoted as a tolerant Muslim country, then lets see what do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
According to the UN in 2002:
"The report of the Special Rapporteur ... concerning cultural practices in the family that are violent towards women (E/CN.4/2002/83), indicated that honour killings had been reported in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Yemen, and other Mediterranean and Persian Gulf countries, and that they had also taken place in western countries such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom, within migrant communities."[13][14] There is a strong positive correlation between violence against women, and women's social power and equality; and a baseline of development, associated with access to basic resources, health care, and human capital, such as literacy - as research by Richard G. Wilkinson shows. In a male dominated society, there is more inequality between men, and women lose out not just physically and economically, but crucially because men who feel subordinated will often try to regain a sense of their authority in turn by excessive subordination of those below them, ie women. (Interestingly, he says that in male-dominated societies, not only do women suffer more violence, and worse health: but so do men.)[15]
According to Widney Brown, advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, the practice "goes across cultures and across religions."[16]
URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&action=edit&section=4"][COLOR=#0066cc]edit[/COLOR][/URL Europe

In 2005 Der Spiegel magazine reports: 'In the past four months, six Muslim women living in Berlin have been brutally murdered by family members', and goes on to cover the case of Hatun Sürücü - killed by her brother for not staying with her husband of forced marriage, but of 'living like a German'. Precise statistics on how many women die every year in such honor killings are hard to come by, as many crimes are never reported, said Myria Boehmecke of the Tuebingen-based women's group Terre des Femmes which, among other things, tries to protect Muslim girls and women from oppressive families. The Turkish women's organization Papatya has documented 40 instances of honor killings in Germany since 1996.[17][18]
Hatun Sürücü's brother and murderer, was convicted of murder and jailed for nine years and three months by a German court in 2006.[19]
In March 2009, Turkish immigrant Gülsüm S. was killed for a relationship outside her family's plan for an arranged marriage.[20]
Every year in the UK, a dozen women are victims of honor killings, occurring almost exclusively to date within Asian and Middle Eastern families[21] and often cases are unresolved due to the unwillingness of family, relatives and communities to testify. A 2006 BBC poll for the Asian network in the UK found that 1 in 10 of the 500 young Asians polled said that they could condone the murder of someone who dishonored their family[22] In the UK, in December 2005, Nazir Afzal, Director, West London, of Britain's Crown Prosecution Service, stated that the United Kingdom has seen "at least a dozen honour killings" between 2004 and 2005.[23] While precise figures do not exist for the perpetrators' cultural backgrounds, Diana Nammi of the UK's Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation is reported to have said:"about two-thirds are Muslim. Yet they can also be Hindu, Sikh and even eastern European."[24]
Another well known case was of Heshu Yones, who was stabbed to death by her father in London in 2002, when her family heard a love song dedicated to her and suspected she had a boyfriend.[25] Another girl suffered a similar fate in Turkey.[26]

Turkey was also the location for the girl who was buried alive by her father because she had male friends;
:http://www.montrealgazette.com/Girl+buried+alive+honour+killing+Turkey+Report/2521342/story.html

Honours killings are illegal in Turkey firstly (the example i gave). So what are you getting at exactly then? The Burqa or Hijab are not mandated by law in Turkey either. So I fail to see what point your trying to make. People do commit terrible crimes in other countries, I fail to see what relevance this has to our legal system exactly, care to explain?

Also, this thread is about banning the Burqa, and not honour killings. I fail to see how banning the Burqa will stop Honour killings personally.

anymore wrote: »

I dont apologise for saying again that the entire sytmem that includes burqa wearing as a requirement needs to be looked at and not just the burqa itself.
Surely in ireland we have learned the lesson of allowing religous, cultural/religous practices to go without question.

Its interesting how banning the Burqa would not have stopped any of the above, isn't it. Also, interesting how what other countries do have no relevance on our laws, which was what i was argueing against.

So how exactly would a Burqa ban stop honours killings exactly? I would really like to know, how this ban will stop them.

GuanYin

sparkling sea wrote: »

As a women I a tired of tradition both my own and other peoples holding me back

See, there is your problem right there. The only thing that really holds people back is themselves. If you stand up for what you believe in and choose to go against traditions, no matter what consequences you suffer, you haven't been held back.

I for one have never o allow traditions dictate what I can and can't do.

- I do not want to import any tradition that allows for and/or accepts discrimination against my sex either primarily or secondarily.

Firstly, if someone chooses to wear a garment for religious reasons, it isn't discrimination. Secondly, you aren't importing anything, except perhaps people who believe something you don't.

If you go down that road, where do you draw the line?

I want my rights upheld. I want true equality - I don’t want acceptance of practices that hinder true equality.

Your rights aren't being messed with in anyway. It has no effect whatsoever on you.

What you don't seem to want, from your posts, is to allow other people to freely express themselves culturally or religiously.

irishconvert

anymore wrote: »

If turkey is to be quoted as a tolerant Muslim country, then lets see what do
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
According to the UN in 2002:
"The report of the Special Rapporteur ... concerning cultural practices in the family that are violent towards women (E/CN.4/2002/83), indicated that honour killings had been reported in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Yemen, and other Mediterranean and Persian Gulf countries, and that they had also taken place in western countries such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom, within migrant communities."[13][14] There is a strong positive correlation between violence against women, and women's social power and equality; and a baseline of development, associated with access to basic resources, health care, and human capital, such as literacy - as research by Richard G. Wilkinson shows. In a male dominated society, there is more inequality between men, and women lose out not just physically and economically, but crucially because men who feel subordinated will often try to regain a sense of their authority in turn by excessive subordination of those below them, ie women. (Interestingly, he says that in male-dominated societies, not only do women suffer more violence, and worse health: but so do men.)[15]
According to Widney Brown, advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, the practice "goes across cultures and across religions."[16]
URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honor_killing&action=edit&section=4"][COLOR=#0066cc]edit[/COLOR][/URL Europe

Isn't it funny how the anti-Muslim bigots who quote this UN report to try to link honour killings to Islam always leave out this line in their quote:

She also noted that such murders were not based on religious beliefs but rather deeply rooted cultural ones

sparkling sea

GuanYin wrote: »

See, there is your problem right there. The only thing that really holds people back is themselves.

What you don't seem to want, from your posts, is to allow other people to freely express themselves culturally or religiously.

The is a wealth of evidence to not only suggest but prove that women are held back in Irish society. Go to any college library - its something you need to educate yourself about if you intend to dicuss it. Tovey and Share would be a good starting point.

If my other posts suggest to you that I don't want to allow other people to "freely express themselves culturally or religious" I would question your abilty to extract accurate conclusions from my posts.

We shall agree to differ, that is presumptuous of me, sorry - shall we agree to differ.

A small change can make a world of difference

anymore

wes wrote: »

Honours killings are illegal in Turkey firstly (the example i gave). So what are you getting at exactly then? The Burqa or Hijab are not mandated by law in Turkey either. So I fail to see what point your trying to make. People do commit terrible crimes in other countries, I fail to see what relevance this has to our legal system exactly, care to explain?

Also, this thread is about banning the Burqa, and not honour killings. I fail to see how banning the Burqa will stop Honour killings personally.



Its interesting how banning the Burqa would not have stopped any of the above, isn't it. Also, interesting how what other countries do have no relevance on our laws, which was what i was argueing against.

So how exactly would a Burqa ban stop honours killings exactly? I would really like to know, how this ban will stop them.

Firstly, I introduced article re Turkey as you seemed to pointing out Tureky as a moderate Muslim country. Thanks be to God 'honour' murders are illegal in Turkey, I shudder to think how many young girls would be murdered in Turkey for offending against the ' decency and so called honour' of their relatives if it were legal ! Even the debate about banning the burqa has served a purpose in highlighting the barbarity behind the system which has as one of its manifestations the forcible wearing of this wretched device.
As to the relevance of what other countries allow having an influence on what happens here, the figures for for the murder of islamic girls in Britain, Germany and France show clearly that along with the importation of forcibile wearing of the burqa, comes the importation of 'honor' murders.

As for a ban on burqas stopping murders, as i have said, just debating it raises awareness which may some day lead to the muslim community rejecting these killings all together.

sparkling sea

wes wrote: »

Apologies if I came off as patronizing.

Thats not problem, thanks for the apology I appreciate it.

wes wrote: »

Now I will certainly agree that forcing people to wear a Burqa will harm society, but that was not what I was talking about. I was talking about letting people choose whether they wish to wear one or not, which is a completely different situation, and I fail to see how allowing such a choice will hurt society, and I have yet to see anyone provide any evidence to show that allowing such a choice will some how harm society.
**EDIT**

Obviously there is a major difference between force and choice, Just as there is a major difference between saying nothing and actually consenting to something. The same can be said about consenting to wearing a burqa and actively wishing to wear one. I would question the stability of any women in the Western world who would choose to wear this oppressive tool freely, I would further question her ability to give free and true consent.

However even if a women consents to wearing a burqa, the question has to be put to her to begin with. I don't believe any woman would make such a choice freely and without either/or covert or overt fear force or fraud and/ brainwashing being present.
But just say she did, do you think she could then change her mind and stop. Living within a community that accepts the wearing of a burqa, and deciding to wear one without that actual knowledge of how it will imprison her, would this women or young impressionable girl because that’s what she usually is then have choice to abandon this custom. I don't believe that she would as rule.

Young people in Ireland make their confirmation at 12 or 13, there ability to consent to freely choose to be a member of the Catholic Church for the rest of their life is nonsense. Its not something they would actively consider doing unless it was pushed on them from a very young age. The allure of the money is another contributing factor.

I wonder how they lure girls into wearing the burqa.

As I said before I have great difficulty imposing bans on anything and although I would like the burqa to be banned, I think that all the women in a country should make the ultimate decision and I would abide by this.
If a ban was to be enforced I don't know what the penalty would be if this ban was broken, and I don't think current penalties would be appropriate.

I tired of discussing this now, it’s giving me a headache - I am glad I don’t have to wear a burqa

anymore

irishconvert wrote: »

Isn't it funny how the anti-Muslim bigots who quote this UN report to try to link honour killings to Islam always leave out this line in their quote:

I left out many parts of the page I quoted; I am very happy for the entire page to be reproduced -
I have myself stated that there seems to be general agreement that burqa wearing isnt a religous requirement. If I had tought it was necessary to say that these murders arent and cant be justified by religion, i would be very happy to do so.
I did however invite people to show us the origins of burqa wearing :

Well the reason I raise the issue of God's design is that the origins of the compulsion to wear the burqa are linked to religion one way or the other. If it is not mandated by the Quran ( which most people seem to agree it is not) then not wearing it seems to be deemed offensive to God's sensibilities regarding modesty. Which is why I asked the question, frivolous as it may seem, is it the contention that God's own design as regards women's faces being visible is somehow flawed ?
There must be some specific reason as to why a whole class of women are required to wear the burqa. What is it and what are its origins. ........
.

Wes despite his enthusiasm and knowledge of islamic matters says, I think, he doesnt know its origins. So perhaps you might enlighten us ?