The Burka. Should wearing it be banned?

Zombrex

sparkling sea wrote: »

Any chance either of you will address the French legislation and the fact that the preceived problems didn't materialise ?

Define preceived problems?

You seem to be ignore the fact that millions of Muslims now cannot wear religious head gear to school? Is that not a problem?

wes

Sand wrote: »

@wes
The shared problem might be best described as a patriarchal, male dominated cultures.

Yes, that would be the shared problem, but at the end of the day, the Burqa whether legal or not, has little or no effect on Honour killings, it is as you say patriarchal male dominated cultures.

I also agree with you regarding children being forced to wear them.

wes

sparkling sea wrote: »

It does mean it won't be a draconian as some people feared.

Yes, which is nice, but I still disagree with it.

wes

sparkling sea wrote: »

If anyone can point me to academic research I would appreciate it.

I am unaware of any that exists.

sparkling sea wrote: »

I
I would say the whole Burqa debate suggests the French think there is a problem with the Burqa or similiar tools of oppression. I don't think it clearly shows anything although it may suggest something

I would disagree, as part of the debate was about integration, which was also the same thing that was being discussed with the whole school thing. i have no issues with Religous symbols being banned from secular state schools, but I don't see how that ban helped integration.

Personally, I think maybe giving people of North African descent, the same chance with Jobs and housing would be far more of a incentive to intergrate than stuff like Burqa bans.

sparkling sea

This might to of interest and demonstrates the correlation between the reasoning behind banning religious symbols and banning the burqa.

Patrick Weil a historian and sociologists states "Five years after the fateful ban on religious symbols, studies and data collected from other European countries indicated that the law had made a positive impact."

At the heart of the debate is the French idea of laïcité, a form of secularism that mandates not only the separation of church and state, but state guarantees that any particular religion will not overrun the public sphere.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, French school officials had witnessed increasing pressure on Muslim girls to wear headscarves, although the majority did not. They considered going after the harassers, but had a difficult time obtaining testimonies.

Banning religious symbols as a specific solution appeared to boil down to the fact that laïcité was simply the French way of doing things. Weil posits that France could not be reduced to the stereotypes of authors such as Joan Scott or Christopher Caldwell, who had asserted that the French were racist or that their liberalism would lead the country to be overrun by Islam, respectively. “Laïcité,” Weil argued, noting that French governments had come and gone, while the principle remained, “is [even] more important in France than the constitution”.

Very similiar arguements.

sparkling sea

Wicknight wrote: »

Define preceived problems?

You seem to be ignore the fact that millions of Muslims now cannot wear religious head gear to school? Is that not a problem?

No I don't see it as a problem and although it preceive that this problem would causes much disruption - the disruption was minimal and stopped within weeks of the introduction of the ban.

Millions of people cannot wear religious symbols and it doesn't appear to be a problem.

The preceived problems that people were sure would arise were that, this legislation breached EU legislation and people who felt they were being discriminated against on religious grounds would successful overturn this legislation in the ECHR. It didn't happen

Children would be withdrawn from schools or sent to specific religous schools and this would even further discourage integration. It didn't happen

It would lead to a rise in fundementalism. Among the communties affected it didn't happen

There were lots of preceived problems - look them up

GuanYin

Mod Note:

This is the second time you've directed someone to "educate themselves"

If you are bringing evidence to a debate, the onus is on YOU to supply the links and references.

Please don't post in such a manner again.

This is a moderation point and not an issue for discussion.

sparkling sea wrote: »

look them up

GuanYin

sparkling sea wrote: »

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.

But this has really nothing to do with Irish women being held back in society.

It isn't as if someone is going to force you to wear a burqa because other people choose to.

It appears to me, to be hardcare plain xenophobia that has been dressed up in this thread as, among other things, feminism, health care, human rights etc etc etc...

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.

Well if you explain yourself articulately then I may draw more accurate conclusions.

Exactly how are you helping a woman by denying her the right to religious expression.

If a woman chooses to wear a burqa (and that is the hypothesis we're going with), why shouldn't she be allowed?

Because it offends YOUR sensibilities of equality?

If so, then you are oppressing religious expression based on your beliefs. Which is as bad, if not worse, than those you are proposing to challenge.

If not, then spell it out for us, because your reasoning has been pretty vague. You've referenced rights struggles and Irish women in society, but they're pulling decoys away from the main issues which is the morality of what you are proposing.

So please, justify your position specifically, so we don't misrepresent you.

irishconvert

Why does everyone assume it is not the woman's choice to wear the Burqa? I know of three women, all my wife's side of the family who wear burqa. One of them is a middle aged woman who wears it of her own free will. Her husband does not force her to wear it. The other two are sisters of my sister in law. They are all from the same family, yet two wear burqa, the other (my sister-in-law) does not even wear hijab. How can you say it is anything other than the woman's choice? I have posted links to videos earlier of Muslim women (some converts) who say they choose to wear burqa. Sure there are women who are forced to wear it by their husbands or fathers, but there are also Irish women who are forced to do housework, should we ban housework also?

On the topic of honour killings which certain posters keep bringing up, let me say that this is totally against Islamic teaching and according to the Qur'an, anyone who kills an innocent person will go to hell.

Also, honour killings are not only confined to Muslim families. They also happen in Sikh, Hindu and even Christian families. According to this BBC news report at least 1 in 12 honour killings in the UK in 2003 were committed by Christians:

BBC wrote:

Scotland Yard believe there were 12 'honour killings' in the UK last year and said they were not restricted to Muslims, but also occurred in Sikh and Christian families

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3149030.stm

Now can we please leave this rubbish about honour killings behind and stop using it to distract from the real topic at hand?

wes

sparkling sea wrote: »

Very similiar arguements.

Any chance you can provide a link to you source? Also, what studies were done and by whom? What do they mean by success? Clearly the banning of head scarves would mean that students wouldn't wear them in school, but did they check that they weren't forced to wear them outside of school? Did the ban help change anyones homes lives? Your source doesn't answer a lot of questions imho.

As it stands, I have to take the word of a random socologists that you quoted, who then quotes a vague number of studies, carried out by out European countries, does that mean the governments or an institution of some kind?

Also, it should be pointed out that banning Religous symbols in a school, is not the same as banning something in a public, and I remain unconvinced that the home lives of girls who were being made to wear head scarves, was somehome magically improved by a ban on wearing them in schools.
Afterall, they don't live in schools 24X7.

Seems to me that the measurement of success being used in your source, is a pretty dodgy and thats being nice, as it leaves out the real test of success and thats a change in the home life of these girls were they aren't being forced to wear things by there parents, but this is mentioned as being a issue in what you quote, and later on not mentioned again.

Sand

@GuanYin

It appears to me, to be hardcare plain xenophobia that has been dressed up in this thread as, among other things, feminism, health care, human rights etc etc etc...

Thats a little controversial to simply throw out there. Can you expand on that?

Laminations

GuanYin wrote: »

It appears to me, to be hardcare plain xenophobia that has been dressed up

this is the third time or so you have questioned the motives of people wanting to see restrictions on face covering and quite frankly i'm getting sick of it. I have given my reasons, take them at face value and stop insulting me with this 'anti islam, xenophobia' rubbish.

GuanYin wrote: »

you are oppressing religious expression based on your beliefs.

Evidence based beliefs should always trump non-evidence based beliefs. I cant argue on whether the belief that covering ones face brings you closer to god or not, there is no evidence either way. I can argue on the importance of faces and facial expression and have posted many references to studies and books on the matter from psychology to behavioural economics. I can then extrapolate that if something is important it should be protected. It doesn't matter to me whether the face covering is a choice or not, their are plenty of choices we are restricted in making. There are restrictions on where we can drink, where we can eat, where we can eliminate, where we can get naked, where we can fornicate. I'm not trying to oppress religious expression, thats hyperbole. There are many ways to express ones religion including many other forms of attire. Please stop with the anti islam nonsense. I have more tolerance for religious beliefs than a lot on here.

Zombrex

sparkling sea wrote: »

No I don't see it as a problem and although it preceive that this problem would causes much disruption - the disruption was minimal and stopped within weeks of the introduction of the ban.

Millions of people cannot wear religious symbols and it doesn't appear to be a problem.

The preceived problems that people were sure would arise were that, this legislation breached EU legislation and people who felt they were being discriminated against on religious grounds would successful overturn this legislation in the ECHR. It didn't happen

Children would be withdrawn from schools or sent to specific religous schools and this would even further discourage integration. It didn't happen

It would lead to a rise in fundementalism. Among the communties affected it didn't happen

There were lots of preceived problems - look them up

So basically what you are saying is that the radical extreme Islam that this ban is supposed to be protecting people against doesn't exist?

Brilliant, the ban is even more pointless.

anymore

irishconvert wrote: »

Why does everyone assume it is not the woman's choice to wear the Burqa? I know of three women, all my wife's side of the family who wear burqa. One of them is a middle aged woman who wears it of her own free will. Her husband does not force her to wear it. The other two are sisters of my sister in law. They are all from the same family, yet two wear burqa, the other (my sister-in-law) does not even wear hijack. How can you say it is anything other than the woman's choice? I have posted links to videos earlier of Muslim women (some converts) who say they choose to wear burqa. Sure there are women who are forced to wear it by their husbands or fathers, but there are also Irish women who are forced to do housework, should we ban housework also?

On the topic of honour killings which certain posters keep bringing up, let me say that this is totally against Islamic teaching and according to the Qur'an, anyone who kills an innocent person will go to hell.

Also, honour killings are not only confined to Muslim families. They also happen in Sikh, Hindu and even Christian families. According to this BBC news report at least 1 in 12 honour killings in the UK in 2003 were committed by Christians:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3149030.stm

Now can we please leave this rubbish about honour killings behind and stop using it to distract from the real topic at hand?

This is, on any view, a tragic story arising out of irreconcilable cultural differences between traditional Kurdish values and the values of western society


Judge Neil Denison

From what I can see forcing young girls into wear the burqa, segragating men and women, choosing husbands for young girls and so call ' honour' murders seem to come from the same cultural values or system.
I have repeatedly asked for the origins for burqa wearing to be discussed in order to ascertain whether it is a religous, cultural or religous/cultural in nature. yet the majority of burqa wearing supporters seem not to be interested in exploring or discussing this.
So I am assuming that it is really a case of males having the power to inflict burqas on women and so they do. It is a useful ' social control' device. The connection with so called ' honour' murders, well it these are an extreme case of men having the power to kill someone and so some do. This power is even able to overcome the natural God given instinct to protect ones daugher or sister or niece.
As some have pointed out, for many males who have little other real power in their lives, this power to control what women wear or who they see or even who they marry may be some compensation to them for the lack of pther power.
The fact that various police forces report difficulty in getting help with their enquiries suggest that there are probably those who disapprove and/or would never contemplate killing someone are for whatever reason reluctant to provide information. Whether this is from loyalty to a group based on culture or religion, we don't really know. Perhaps there are pressures from being members of a close knit society which tends to keep itself separate in many aspects from the wider community in which they live. If so then keeping a significant section of that society isolated behind burqas is a matter that should be of concern to us all.
I suspect the reluctance to discuss the origins of burqa is because there is not rational reasonable justification for its existence other than the wielding of power.

God did not design women to have their faces permanently covered in public. I suggest it is a perversion of His Design for women to be forced to wear burqas. So it is not religious and if this is so, then why ?

P.S Irishconvert, I think we can assume that those who murder their daughters, sisters for the ' crime' of immodesty will say that they werent killing the innocent. And talking about murder isnt rubbish.

anymore

Wicknight wrote: »

So basically what you are saying is that the radical extreme Islam that this ban is supposed to be protecting people against doesn't exist?

Brilliant, the ban is even more pointless.

No she is just saying the dire predictions didnt materialise - good news.:)

Laminations

Anymore i dont know why you are bringing up honour killings they are illegal here and not condoned or tolerated in the slightest. The problem is that from most peoples attitudes here face covering is not condoned but it is tolerated. I think if people are against something it should be restricted or possibly more favourably campaigned against. I do agree that people should be given the choice but my problem with the 'we can educate them, persuade them to do otherwise' argument is lame. There are no campaigns, any such campaigns would be deemed racist. Educating kids in schools that covering their faces is barbaric and dehumanises society would be seen as racist. A restriction (which also may be seen as racist - GuanYin) may be the best option. I know you cant educate people out of irrational beliefs.

As for the origins of face covering it doesn't matter. If people believed carrying a machete was ok, it wouldn't matter whether their belief was religious or cultural to argue against its practice.

irishconvert

Anymore, your constant attempts to distract from the debate and muddy the waters by bringing in honour killings, etc is tiresome. Let me ask you a simple questions and just give a yes or no answer:

Do you agree that some women who wear the Burqa do so of their own free will and choice?

irishconvert

And another question for Anymore:

How will banning the Burqa stop honour killings by Christians in the UK?

anymore

• Below I have provided a summary of the arguments against burqa wearing put forward by French philosopher Bernard Henri Levy writing in the Huffington Post on the subject of burqa wearing and referred to in an earlier post
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/why-i-support-a-ban-on-bu_b_463192.html
• The burqa is a message that communicates the subjugation, the subservience and the crushing and defeat of women.
• The wearing of the burqa corresponds to no Koranic prescription.
• There is no verse, no text of the Sunna that obliges women to live in this prison of wire and cloth that is the full-body veil.
• There is not a shoyoukh, not one religious scholar, who is unaware that the Koran does not consider showing the face "nudity" any more than it does showing the hands.
• Hassan Chalghoumi, the courageous Imam of Drancy, amongst others,.says that wearing a full-body veil is downright anti-Islamic.
• What is at stake is the Enlightenment of yesterday and today, and the heritage of both, no less sacred than that of the three monotheisms. A step backwards, just one, on this front would give the nod to all obscurantism, all fanaticism, all the true thoughts of hatred and violence.
• People ask why put up regulations for the small number of people of wear burqas ? Answer; if it is just a costume or a harmless practice, then tolerance is the response. Or if it is an attack on women, an attack on the principle of an equality that was hard fought and won, then it is a principle and on principles, numbers are irrelevant.

anymore

irishconvert wrote: »

And another question for Anymore:

How will banning the Burqa stop honour killings by Christians in the UK?

I was unaware of the practice and thank you for mentioning it. As you see, and as i have said before the mere debating of the subject of banning burqa wearing has raised and increased awareness of so called 'honour' murders. Pardon the pun, 'Lifting the Veil' on undesriable or unsocial or in the case of murder,evil practices is a first step to stopping them.
And can I ask you to discuss the origins of burqa wearing ?

Nodin

anymore wrote: »

• Below I (...........)are irrelevant.

An opinion. Those who wear it have another contrary one. Why should one trump the other in a free society?

joolsveer

I was not sure what the burqa being discussed here was so I did a google and came up with this image.



I would not be in favour of people going around with their faces totally concealed.

anymore

irishconvert wrote: »

Anymore, your constant attempts to distract from the debate and muddy the waters by bringing in honour killings, etc is tiresome. Let me ask you a simple questions and just give a yes or no answer:

Do you agree that some women who wear the Burqa do so of their own free will and choice?

I dealt with the question of free will and burqa wearing at length earlier in the thread, if my memory is right. And i have repeatedly and to the point of boredom explained the links I see between the various practices that emanate from cerain conservative wings of the islamic faith and I acccept that some of these are not exclusive to the islamic faith.
I am quite happy to agree that many of us disagree with different aspects of this thread. If we are to limit discussion on the thread to either agreeing or disagreeing on whether there should be a ban or not on burqa wearing, then i am happy with that as well and we can let the thread come to a natural conclusion.

irishconvert

anymore wrote: »

I was unaware of the practice and thank you for mentioning it. As you see, and as i have said before the mere debating of the subject of banning burqa wearing has raised and increased awareness of so called 'honour' murders. Pardon the pun, 'Lifting the Veil' on undesriable or unsocial or in the case of murder,evil practices is a first step to stopping them.
And can I ask you to discuss the origins of burqa wearing ?

You have not answered the question so I will ask it again

How will banning the burqa stop Christian 'honour killings' in the UK?

irishconvert

anymore wrote: »

I dealt with the question of free will and burqa wearing at length earlier in the thread, if my memory is right. And i have repeatedly and to the point of boredom explained the links I see between the various practices that emanate from cerain conservative wings of the islamic faith and I acccept that some of these are not exclusive to the islamic faith.
I am quite happy to agree that many of us disagree with different aspects of this thread. If we are to limit discussion on the thread to either agreeing or disagreeing on whether there should be a ban or not on burqa wearing, then i am happy with that as well and we can let the thread come to a natural conclusion.

You have not answered my question so I will ask it again:

Do you agree that some women who wear the Burqa do so of their own free will and choice?

sirromo

irishconvert wrote: »

Do you agree that some women who wear the Burqa do so of their own free will and choice?

Only some women?

anymore

Suggestion
Why dont we just do an informal poll on the thread on the question of banning; just post a 'Yes' to banning or a ' No' to banning or a 'Dont know'.
We could keep on going round the same points until the cows come home.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

An opinion. Those who wear it have another contrary one. Why should one trump the other in a free society?

So a free, open and equal society is opinion? Opinions trumping opinions has no place in a free society, is it your opinion we live in a free society? Why should your opinion trump someone elses (not my) opinion that we shouldn't live in a free society? or do you admit its the principle of freedom you uphold and believe should be protected? therefore can you admit there are other principles of openness and equality? Evidence based principles always trump beliefs. Not covering ones face is a very small freedom to forego to protect openness and equality.

Laminations

anymore wrote: »

Suggestion
Why dont we just do an informal poll on the thread on the question of banning; just post a 'Yes' to banning or a ' No' to banning or a 'Dont know'.
We could keep on going round the same points until the cows come home.

As mentioned about 40 pages ago the wording of a poll would be crucial. I'd be against banning but for restrictions. Although in place of restrictions i'd settle for the introduction of an educational campaign in schools and colleges.

anymore

irishconvert wrote: »

You have not answered the question so I will ask it again

How will banning the burqa stop Christian 'honour killings' in the UK?

Do YOU wear a burqa of your own free will ?