The Burka. Should wearing it be banned?

Valmont

DF, maybe I'm wrong here* but did you not support the Swiss ban on the construction of Minarets as it represented the extremism of Islam? Should you not oppose Burkas on the same grounds? Why is this different?

*Apologies if I mixed this up.

Eliot Rosewater

bonkey wrote: »

I take it, then, that you (at least) don't want to address the point....that being that a ban on covering of the face has ramifications far beyond the burka which should be considered and addressed as part of any debate.

Apologies, I think you missed my point, which was really trying to emphasize your point. Many of reasons given here for banning the Burka do have far reaching ramifications. If we should ban the Burka based on the Vitamin D deficiency (as someone has suggested) then surely this should be just one part of a interventionist policy by the Government to ensure that all those living in Ireland get all their vitamins. But this, of course, is unreasonable.

It doesn't seem that people want the Burka banned because of the reasons they give, but rather that these reasons are merely excuses for a preconceived position. Which is partly proved by the huge ramifications of what they are proposing. One post was to the effect that the Burka should be banned for under-agers because it amounted to parents forcing their religious beliefs on their children. The repercussions of such a move would be far too wide to be realistic.

To summarize: it seems that people are assuming broad policy positions, then cherry picking how these policies are implemented so as to suit perfectly their desire for the Burka to be banned but for all other things to stay constant.

Flamed Diving

Eliot, I'm not calling for it to be banned but if I walked around town in an old sheet with two eye holes, minding my own business, would I be left alone by authorities?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Berwick

blueeyedboy wrote: »

Yes it should be banned.

I second that.

The Burka is just inhuman.

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Apologies, I think you missed my point, which was really trying to emphasize your point. Many of reasons given here for banning the Burka do have far reaching ramifications. If we should ban the Burka based on the Vitamin D deficiency (as Lamanations has suggested) then surely this should be just one part of a interventionist policy by the Government to ensure that all those living in Ireland get all their vitamins. But this, of course, is unreasonable.

I did not suggest this, it was someone else, go check it out, apologise and edit your post.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It doesn't seem that people want the Burka banned because of the reasons they give, but rather that these reasons are merely excuses for a preconceived position. Which is partly proved by the huge ramifications of what they are proposing. One post was to the effect that the Burka should be banned for under-agers because it amounted to parents forcing their religious beliefs on their children. The repercussions of such a move would be far too wide to be realistic.

Sorry what are you suggesting here? Please explicitly state the ulterior motives you are accusing me of having. And again, I never went near the underage (consent) argument as this affects all religious beliefs like you say. My point is not about religious beliefs although you might like to try and frame it that way. I've stressed this numerous times. Go read post #137 again. Also I never suggested legislation would be easy

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

To summarize: it seems that people are assuming broad policy positions, then cherry picking how these policies are implemented so as to suit perfectly their desire for the Burka to be banned but for all other things to stay constant.

Who is cherry picking? I'm not, I feel the same way about niqabs and balaclavas or any form of face covering for the sake of face covering. You are distorting my argument completely as well as attributing other peoples (frankly ridiculous) arguments to me.

Laminations

bonkey wrote: »

Just on this whole "face covering is wrong" thing...

I presume all those making that argument believe that protestors who cover their faces at demonstrations should be arrested if and when this law you want gets passed?

I feel the same way about any face covering for the sake of face covering. If you want to protest in public, do it in public. I dont think you should be allowed hide your face like this which can easily escalate to this. If you want to protest anonymously sign an online petition. As for whether they are arrested, I dont know, I never mentioned consequences of ignoring any restriction. Again, I never said legislating would be easy but if you cant seriously tell the difference between niqabs and balaclavas and 'legitimate' reasons to cover ones face then you must have spent many sleepless nights wondering why professional skiiers were fighting the unionists in the north.

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

May I also presume that those who advocate it on the basis of some kind of societal responsibility to interact will want to introduce laws requiring, amongst other things, donegalfella to talk to people wearing Che Guevara t-shirts?

You are right, you cant legislate to compel people to communicate, there are many people with all types of dress sense that one may not want to talk to - from facial tattoos to kids in hoodies to morbidly obese people. I'm not arguing that we should legislate to increase the desirability to communicate. DF may have many reasons to steer clear of che guevara clad folks, he may take offence, it may be prejudice or just simply preference and we cant legislate for preferences. I'm not arguing about desirability, I'm talking about ABILITY to communicate. Covering ones face in public is effectively ex-communicating oneself. It is removing the ability to communicate. People always have the choice of whether they WANT to talk to someone (this can never be forced) but unless you downgrade completely the richness of information in a cheeky smile or a quivering lip, then covering ones face greatly reduces the ability to communicate. And for people to suggest it should be left up to choice (ironically championing the right to freedom of expression) how do they feel on get-ups like this? If anything I'm far more strongly opposed to balaclavas because of their criminal associations.

Its not a societal responsibility to interact, its a societal ability to interact. Face covering should be restricted for the same reasons broadband should be expanded.

S.L.F

Any chance of a poll?

P. Breathnach

S.L.F wrote: »

Any chance of a poll?

What would the question be?

Flamed Diving

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What would the question be?

*looks at title*


I dunno, should the ban on calling union officials 'beards' be lifted?

Laminations

The wording of any poll would be crucial. I'd be against a ban but in favour of restrictions. Since its only the niqab part of a burka i object to it couldn't be focused on burkas as a whole outfit. In fact, I'd be against any narrow question targeted at muslims and burkas specifically. For me its about the whole issue of face covering in public

S.L.F

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What would the question be?

How about

1. Should legislation be brought in to stop women being forced to wear the Burka in public by their menfolk?

2. They can see our women why can't we see theirs...should the Burka be banned?

3. Should the Burka be banned bar public places for security reasons?

4. Since women who wear the Burka are marked as soon as they leave their houses should it be banned?

I personally am for a ban, I don't see why they can't respect our customs in our country as we are forced to do in theirs.

Laminations

S.L.F wrote: »

How about

1. Should legislation be brought in to stop women being forced to wear the Burka in public by their menfolk?

2. They can see our women why can't we see theirs...should the Burka be banned?

3. Should the Burka be banned bar public places for security reasons?

4. Since women who wear the Burka are marked as soon as they leave their houses should it be banned?

I personally am for a ban, I don't see why they can't respect our customs in our country as we are forced to do in theirs.

The wording of all of those suggestions is inadequate and discriminatory. All forms of face covering for face coverings sake need to be addressed. How do people feel about balaclavas? Do people show tolerance there or is tolerance just reserved for when religion is involved?

S.L.F

Laminations wrote: »

The wording of all of those suggestions is inadequate and discriminatory.

So how would you start a poll?

Laminations wrote: »

All forms of face covering for face coverings sake need to be addressed. How do people feel about balaclavas? Do people show tolerance there or is tolerance just reserved for when religion is involved?

and that is the question, is the Burka park of the religion or is it just a custom, women in several muslim countries are not forced to wear the Burka

Laminations

S.L.F wrote: »

So how would you start a poll?

Should the value of face to face interaction in public be protected?

Or

Should there be restrictions on face covering (for no legitimate health, safety or weather reasons) in certain public places?

Even those are inadequate and too loose and waffley but at least they aren't discriminatory

Angry Troll

i think it should be banned.
showing your face in everyday life is part of western culture and in fact of most cultures worldwide…
somebody here mentioned security reasons…a good point…thinking of those guys who robbed a french post office wearing burkas recently…brilliant idea in a way, kinda surprising it doesn’t happen more often…

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

Laminations wrote: »

go check it out, apologise and edit your post.

Done. Apologies. In these threads there is a tendency to be "hazed" by all the arguments and considering you appear to be the lead debater for the "yes" side I assumed it was you. At the risk of being pernickety, Ill mention that you did the same thing to me (I wasnt the one who brought up decency). It happens

Laminations wrote: »

Please explicitly state the ulterior motives you are accusing me of having.

That comment was a generalized (and thus flawed) description of what I perceive to be the debating/rationale tactics here. It wasn't directed at you solely, in fact the reason that you give - that our faces should be shown in public - is the most tenable of the "yes" arguments here, from what I can see, so the comment least of all applies to you!

The point I'm making is that some reasons to ban the Burka - such as Vit D deficiency - are not worthy they seem to be made up to justify a preconceived position, in my view.

Rb

I have absolutely zero tolerance of Islam or its followers and consequently would thrive on seeing the outfits of oppression banned in our country.

I was in NYC for a week recently and in the entire week of walking around Manhattan during the day I saw two women with open-faced hijabs. It was delightful and something I hope to see spread nationwide.

And sure if they don't like it, let them go back to their own countries.

Laminations

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Done. Apologies. In these threads there is a tendency to be "hazed" by all the arguments and considering you appear to be the lead debater for the "yes" side I assumed it was you. At the risk of being pernickety, Ill mention that you did the same thing to me (I wasnt the one who brought up decency). It happens

Thank you, and I also apologise, checking back I see it was bonkey. Just because I am making my argument on the grounds of ALL types of facial covering does not mean I support ALL the other arguments for restrictions. In fact I support none of them.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That comment was a generalized (and thus flawed) description of what I perceive to be the debating/rationale tactics here. It wasn't directed at you solely, in fact the reason that you give - that our faces should be shown in public - is the most tenable of the "yes" arguments here, from what I can see, so the comment least of all applies to you!

The point I'm making is that some reasons to ban the Burka - such as Vit D deficiency - are not worthy they seem to be made up to justify a preconceived position, in my view.

Yep, I believe my argument for restrictions on face covering is the only tenable one, there are many rubbish arguments, such as concealment of weapons (which can be done under any baggy clothes) or the vitamin D thing or the plain 'I dont like them' argument but the counter argument to my point WHICH CONCERNS THE ABILITY (not the desire) TO COMMUNICATE seems to be to point out other forms of clothing (or behaviour) that may reduce the likelihood of wanting to talk to someone. It is not the same.


Take this for example, I'm comparing types of facial covering, all of which I'm against

Laminations wrote: »

If anything I'm far more strongly opposed to balaclavas because of their criminal associations.

And DF repeats a clothing preference he has for the people he engages with.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Che Guevara tshirts do not restrict his ability to communicate, unless of course they blind him or make him violently ill or some other such nonsense

This issue is quite unique. Its difficult to think of another behaviour or attire that restricts the ability to communicate (rather than just desirability). Its essentially voluntarily disabling yourself which I believe should be legislated against. Are people only being touchy here because religion is involved? What are your views on people going about their business in balaclavas?

Laminations

Rb wrote: »

I have absolutely zero tolerance of Islam or its followers and consequently would thrive on seeing the outfits of oppression banned in our country.

I was in NYC for a week recently and in the entire week of walking around Manhattan during the day I saw two women with open-faced hijabs. It was delightful and something I hope to see spread nationwide.

And sure if they don't like it, let them go back to their own countries.

See my point above about ridiculous arguments.

What may I ask is an open-faced hijab? Is it not just a regular hijab?
Your post is discriminatory and hateful, and can I just mention when the thread descended into the religious vs. non-religious insulting each other there was plenty of hate shown by both sides.

I agree that in many instances the Burka can be seen as a garment of oppression but it is also the choice of many women to wear it. Are you suggesting a ban on all forms of religious expression or just all forms of islamic expression. Having you 'argue on my side' distracts from the point of my issue with face covering and I dont want to be associated with you.

Rb

Laminations wrote: »

See my point above about ridiculous arguments.

What may I ask is an open-faced hijab? Is it not just a regular hijab?
Your post is discriminatory and hateful, and can I just mention when the thread descended into the religious vs. non-religious insulting each other there was plenty of hate shown by both sides.

I agree that in many instances the Burka can be seen as a garment of oppression but it is also the choice of many women to wear it. Are you suggesting a ban on all forms of religious expression or just all forms of islamic expression. Having you 'argue on my side' distracts from the point of my issue with face covering and I dont want to be associated with you.

If I could ban all symbols of religion from public places, be it Burkas or Crosses, I would. It's not necessary and it merely furthers segregation.

Google brings up a few different types of hijabs, some with the mouth covered and some not. Yes, I actively discriminate against Muslim people, so I would expect my post to sound somewhat discriminatory I don't care though, I see no reason why I should tolerate it here when they wouldn't even tolerate my girlfriend going by her own second name in one of their countries, instead they tried to tack my surname onto her first name where possible but instead confused the firstname with the surname, and vice versa, and we were actually able to board planes there with totally wrong names on our boarding passes. Madness.

Anyway, I got sidetracked there, I don't care if I come across as discriminatory or hateful with regards to Islam as that's exactly how I feel about the religion and its presence here.

You use "choice" very liberally there, there are many photos comparing muslim countries in the 60s and 70s to how it is now, and there's a significant difference namely the absence of hijabs, burquas etc. I'd question how much "choice" there is and how much pressure, be it peer pressure, family pressure etc. there is involved. I'm talking about the cases where the men involved don't actively order the women to wear them also.

Eliot Rosewater

Laminations wrote: »

Take this for example, I'm comparing types of facial covering, all of which I'm against

I respect that! I just fundamentally feel that clothing is a matter of personal preference. I don't really agree with the Burka, and would certainly be very hesitant about letting any daughters I ever had wear them. But I'm very tolerant and restrained, and I don't feel at all the need to apply my view to everyone.

Of course one of the main reasons is security. Id like to emphasize my belief in the right that all private property owners have to refuse admittance. I include government owned buildings in this.

Laminations wrote: »

Che Guevara tshirts do not restrict his ability to communicate

I don't think he was saying that, rather he was pointing out that who we talk to is a matter of personal preference. If a woman - foreign or otherwise - wants forfeit her right to talk to others it really is unfortunate, but its also something I wouldn't intervene in just because I "know better". Fundamentally, I don't see how forcing her to take off her Burka will force her into communicating anyway.

Laminations wrote: »

Are people only being touchy here because religion is involved? What are your views on people going about their business in balaclavas?

I think in cases where religion is involved there is an extra tendency to err on the side of doing nothing in an attempt to uphold the secular ideal of the State. I don't see that as a bad thing, but then again I say that as someone whos views are often helped by that tendency.

As regards the balaclavas: the intentions are totally at odds. In general if someone entered a shop with a balaclava on they would proceed to rob it. I don't think Burkas have the same criminal intentions associated with them!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You think its legitimate to walk down the street in a balaclava? You think a masked protest is legitimate?? why? Can you seriously not discriminate between legitimate and illegitimate forms of face covering?? (the latter being worn in a certain context for health, safety or weather reasons e.g. a surgeons mask in a hospital, a halloween mask at halloween, a skiing mask while skiing, a scarf over your face in bitterly cold weather - all or most of which are taken off to communicate). If you cant discriminate between these forms of face covering, like I said, you must wonder why professional skiiers are fighting each other in the north, or why the majority of surgeons appear to be practising muslims, or why halloween must be a particularly cold time of year for children because so many kids wear masks.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Whether they are receptive or not, THAT is their choice, voluntarily disabling themselves for communication is a different matter.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Agreed, if you dont want to reveal your face (as in this is the sole reason for covering your face) then dont go out in public.

Do I think we should impersonalise public areas (areas of interaction) even more by allowing face coverings? No

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Almost let this slip. You are twisting my point to make it specifically about muslims. Dont do it.

Your only argument against me is freedom of expression which I find ironic. Your comparison of face covering and che guevara tshirts is weak, as I've pointed out.

Rb

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

All I said is that if I could then I would

theg81der

I uphold free choice but only so far as your not infringing on someone elses liberty. I believe everyone else has a right to dress (or not ) as they please and I do not want that right taken from me.

But if some of these people, possibly the ones who are very traditional and wear the burka in the first place, had there way they would take my free choice away as a woman. So to what extent is them wearing the burka furthering their desires to take my rights away, what impact is it having?

My father is muslim and I have had a lot of muslim friends so I`m not coming from a place of hate but this religion does, in my opinion, in essence cause a threat to my freedom and I do not want to further its progression.