Burka ban

irishconvert

There are probably two kinds of women who wear Burqa
1. Those who choose to do so as they believe it is an integral part of their religion
2. Those who are pressurised by their husbands/family

The ban is unfair firstly as is it forcing the first type of women to remove the burqa against their will. It is hypocritical to introduce a law which aims to stop opression of one group of people but has the effect of opressing another group of people. Secondly, the majority of both types of women above will probably just not leave their house anymore. So the net result is that the ban has taken even more freedom away from the women it claims to protect.

sensibleken

I'm religious and support the ban

irishconvert wrote: »

There are probably two kinds of women who wear Burqa
1. Those who choose to do so as they believe it is an integral part of their religion
2. Those who are pressurised by their husbands/family

The ban is unfair firstly as is it forcing the first type of women to remove the burqa against their will. It is hypocritical to introduce a law which aims to stop opression of one group of people but has the effect of opressing another group of people. Secondly, the majority of both types of women above will probably just not leave their house anymore. So the net result is that the ban has taken even more freedom away from the women it claims to protect.

The second point is why they say they brought in the law alright. But I would like to know what they are basing this on. Have there been studies on the 2000 women who wear them? Has anyone even asked them? Or is this an assumption the french and a lot of people are making that if they are covering their face its because they are being told to?

Even if it is there is no way this is going to make those women any more liberated

sensibleken

I'm religious and support the ban

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I think a fine is reasonable, though incarceration should not be ruled out for anyone who persistently breaks a law.

that really sounds like a horrible horrible country you find reasonable.

Rev Hellfire

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

irishconvert wrote: »

Secondly, the majority of both types of women above will probably just not leave their house anymore.

I'm not denying that, its certainly the case that this will happen.

irishconvert wrote: »

So the net result is that the ban has taken even more freedom away from the women it claims to protect.

Perhaps initially it will, but long term it creates an environment where such practices become impractical.

Rev Hellfire

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

sensibleken wrote: »

that really sounds like a horrible horrible country you find reasonable.

You break a law you bear a consequence, its the way all functioning societies operate.

sensibleken

I'm religious and support the ban

No a good functioning society is fair to its citizens.

There are such a thing as dumb laws, the blasphemy one for a start. Although punishments may exist for it, it does not mean its right.

Rev Hellfire

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

sensibleken wrote: »

There are such a thing as dumb laws, the blasphemy one for a start. Although punishments may exist for it, it does not mean its right.

And in this case I believe such a law would be both justified and fair, you don't such is life.
If the weight of public opinion is for such a law it will go through otherwise it will not.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Firstly there is a victim here, its the women herself coerced or educated into believing this is what she should do.

we should ban excessive makeup, because women are being coerced into believing that they should wear it.

Rev Hellfire

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

we should ban excessive makeup, because women are being coerced into believing that they should wear it.

Yes that exactly the same, very clever.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

my point was you cannot legislate for every single situation.

Rev Hellfire

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

my point was you cannot legislate for every single situation.

You don't have too, just the ones that count ie. this case.

robindch

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

sink wrote: »

The only way to combat harmful ideas is with enlightenment.

And how can the state encourage enlightenment when there exist religious schools whose purpose is to fight enlightenment by exercising the politics of identity, subtle group coercion, religious supremacy, the absolute nature of religious belief, and so on?

In this case, the political fight is completely asymmetric -- the emotional side is going to trump the intellectual every time.

sink wrote: »

Oppressed women are still going to be under the thumb of their oppressors.

Yes, but they'll be oppressed one inch less.

sink wrote: »

[...] in the process given the bigots ammunition to fire back at you in resistance against real fundamental change.

And you'll also have drawn a line in the sand against such bigots.

Mark Hamill

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

my point was you cannot legislate for every single situation.

So dont legislate for any?

Mark Hamill

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

irishconvert wrote: »

1. Those who choose to do so as they believe it is an integral part of their religion

The fact that they are wrong has no bearing, does it? The burka is a cultural invention, not an islamic invention.

irishconvert wrote: »

There are probably two kinds of women who wear Burqa
1. Those who choose to do so as they believe it is an integral part of their religion
2. Those who are pressurised by their husbands/family

The ban is unfair firstly as is it forcing the first type of women to remove the burqa against their will. It is hypocritical to introduce a law which aims to stop opression of one group of people but has the effect of opressing another group of people. Secondly, the majority of both types of women above will probably just not leave their house anymore. So the net result is that the ban has taken even more freedom away from the women it claims to protect.

Wether the people in the first group recognise it or not, they are being oppressed. The fact that they accept this oppression, because it has been bred into them since birth, or fulfils some need they didn't get in their native religon, is irrelevent, they are being oppressed and it should be stopped.

irishconvert wrote: »

So the net result is that the ban has taken even more freedom away from the women it claims to protect.

These women are still free to go out, its their own arbitrary and nonsensical limitations that will stop them (assuming its not their husbands).

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

And how can the state encourage enlightenment when there exist religious schools whose purpose is to fight enlightenment by exercising the politics of identity, subtle group coercion, religious supremacy, the absolute nature of religious belief, and so on?

hang on, it's one thing legislating for what people wear on their faces, it's an entirely different matter when it comes to regulating schools. i've no beef with regulation of schools to make sure that the school follows a defined curriculum and does not have one set of rules for one group of students and another set for a different group.

telling a grown adult what she (or he) cannot wear in public is a different matter.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Wether the people in the first group recognise it or not, they are being oppressed. The fact that they accept this oppression, because it has been bred into them since birth, or fulfils some need they didn't get in their native religon, is irrelevent, they are being oppressed and it should be stopped.

and you cannot legislate against stupidity or ignorance. whatever the reasons these women choose to wear the burka, once they are adults, it's their choice.

robindch

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

hang on, it's one thing legislating for what people wear on their faces, it's an entirely different matter when it comes to regulating schools.

I was responding to sink's point that women will refuse to wear a burka if they've been "enlightened". It's simply not the case.

magicbastarder wrote: »

and you cannot legislate against stupidity or ignorance.

Yes you can, that's what, say, the rules of the road and traffic cops are there for.

magicbastarder wrote: »

whatever the reasons these women choose to wear the burka, once they are adults, it's their choice.

It's not a choice when there's no choice.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Yes you can, that's what, say, the rules of the road and traffic cops are there for.

not the same argument. you're legislating against some very real results of ignorance (the rules of the road and the traffic cops are the means to an end), not the ignorance itself.
i hate the phrase 'nanny state'. but in this case, it's as close a term as can be used.

irishconvert

robindch wrote: »

.It's not a choice when there's no choice.

With an attitude like that it sounds like you'd feel more at home living in Saudi Arabia than a free democratic society where people have freedoms of choice and expression.

robindch

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

irishconvert wrote: »

With an attitude like that it sounds like you'd feel more at home living in Saudi Arabia than a free democratic society where people have freedoms of choice and expression.

Having travelled widely within the Middle East, it's quite clear that it's naive to think, and silly to pretend, that wearing a burka has anything at all to do with freedom, choice or expression.

This debate is about returning freedom to people who've had it stolen from them.

Mark Hamill

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

and you cannot legislate against stupidity or ignorance. whatever the reasons these women choose to wear the burka, once they are adults, it's their choice.

We cant legislate against taking drugs, dangerous driving or anything like that then?

Mark Hamill

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

hang on, it's one thing legislating for what people wear on their faces, it's an entirely different matter when it comes to regulating schools. i've no beef with regulation of schools to make sure that the school follows a defined curriculum and does not have one set of rules for one group of students and another set for a different group.

telling a grown adult what she (or he) cannot wear in public is a different matter.

We already tell people what they can or cant wear. Are you allowed to walk around naked in Dublin city?

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

i think i already covered that argument.
with drugs and driving, you're legislating against the effects of the behaviour, not the behaviour itself.
with the burqa ban, you're trying to legislate against the cause by legislating against an effect. which will probably be counterproductive, i'd say.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We already tell people what they can or cant wear. Are you allowed to walk around naked in Dublin city?

it's a bit of a stretch to equate 'you must cover up your genitals' with 'women cannot cover their faces'.

Mark Hamill

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

not the same argument. you're legislating against some very real results of ignorance (the rules of the road and the traffic cops are the means to an end), not the ignorance itself.
i hate the phrase 'nanny state'. but in this case, it's as close a term as can be used.

Its the exact same with the burka ban. We cant legislate against people being stupid. We cant tell them its illegal to be ignorant. Be we can make it illegal for them to act stupid and ignorant and hope they cop on.
The very real results of allowing the burka is the increase in power and influence of the people who support the burka. Bend over to any over controlling, misoginystic rules and they will try to bring in more. Its already happening in america, where, while you can say Jesus is addicted to porn and Vishnu takes cocaine (see South park) a word against Islam gets you death threats and car bombs. Its time to stand and tell muslims the reason they get to do the things they do in the West is because we allow it, not because they can get what they want. We already do it with every other religion (wasn't long ago that christian women wher required to cover their hair, at least in church, imagine the uproar if a christian church tried to spring that on all women now?)

Mark Hamill

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think i already covered that argument.
with drugs and driving, you're legislating against the effects of the behaviour, not the behaviour itself.
with the burqa ban, you're trying to legislate against the cause by legislating against an effect. which will probably be counterproductive, i'd say.

With drinks and drugs you legislate against the behavour (taking drink and drugs) in order to prevent the effects of the behavour (road deaths and crime).
With the burka, you legislate against the behavour (covering up) in order to prevent the effect (the appearance of state acceptance of a foreign powers rules, which would undermine that states power over its citizens, particularly those from the foreign powers). Its the same thing.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Yes. But as previously, the religion is being used by men to control women in the first place.

True but that isn't a reason to ban the religious practice.

There is a rather ridiculous nonsense in telling women they can't wear what they wish in order to protect them from being dictated what to wear.

I'm all for laws that target male oppression of women.

robindch wrote: »

If muslim men and women weren't forcing muslim women to conform to a silly dress code in the first place, then the state wouldn't have to intervene in what should, properly, be a matter of personal choice.

Yeah but imagine if Dawkins wasn't allowed publish a book on atheism because some extreme Muslims publish books on how blowing up the Twin Towers was justified, the argument being that books are being used to spread dangerous ideas we should ban books.

sensibleken

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

With drinks and drugs you legislate against the behavour (taking drink and drugs) in order to prevent the effects of the behavour (road deaths and crime).
With the burka, you legislate against the behavour (covering up) in order to prevent the effect (the appearance of state acceptance of a foreign powers rules, which would undermine that states power over its citizens, particularly those from the foreign powers). Its the same thing.

what foreign power? these are french citizens, there are no foreign countries telling them to do it. they are doing it because its part of their religious culture

Mark Hamill

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's a bit of a stretch to equate 'you must cover up your genitals' with 'women cannot cover their faces'.

Its telling people what they can and cannot wear. Its the same thing. The government already legislate on what people can/cannot wear. You cant wear a motorbike helmet in the post office.

Mark Hamill

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

sensibleken wrote: »

what foreign power? these are french citizens, there are no foreign countries telling them to do it. they are doing it because its part of their religious culture

Well firstly, islam is for all intents and purpose a foreign power. Its power base is not in the west and its followers, regardless of nationality, hold Islamic leaders above the leaders of the country they live in.
Secondly, the burka is not part of islamic culture, its a middle eastern islamic device, originating in the fact the billowing, all covering clothes are actually more comfortable in hot and arid climates than western garb (note that in Islamic countries that arent hot and arid like Arabia and Afghanistan, the burka is far less prevelant), but resurrected by Wahab followers in the 50s (Mohammed Al Wahab was a frings islamic scholar from the 18th century, who held to a more literal and extreme interpretation of the quran). The fact this has lead to all Arabian princes since being Wahabis just goes to show that the burka (and other extreme rules like it) are not religious, but cultural (and political).

Mark Hamill

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

Wicknight wrote: »

True but that isn't a reason to ban the religious practice.

There is a rather ridiculous nonsense in telling women they can't wear what they wish in order to protect them from being dictated what to wear.

I'm all for laws that target male oppression of women.

How do you target this kind of male oppression of women when the women dont admit/recognise that they are being oppressed?
Its like how some women who get abused by their husbands come to think that they deserve and that their husbands are right to do it. The fact that they dont see anything wrong shouldn't stop the rest of the world from stopping their husbands from abusing them.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah but imagine if Dawkins wasn't allowed publish a book on atheism because some extreme Muslims publish books on how blowing up the Twin Towers was justified, the argument being that books are being used to spread dangerous ideas we should ban books.

But the argument isn't that all books spread dangerous ideas, its that certain books spread dangerous ideas, so lets ban these books. No-one is saying we should ban all clothes, just the ones used as oppresion.

sensibleken

I'm religious and support the ban

Again, has anyone seen anything to prove that in France women are being coerced or forced to wear it. Or is an assumption thats being made.

There are plenty of things that look like opression or other forms of barbarism to certain people (such as circumcision or even body piercing).

not saying it is one way or another.

robindch

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

Wicknight wrote: »

robindch wrote:

[...] religion is being used by men to control women [...]

True but that isn't a reason to ban the religious practice. [...] I'm all for laws that target male oppression of women.

A splendidly even-handed position

robindch

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

sensibleken wrote: »

Or is an assumption thats being made.

There might have been a few, but certainly not many so basically, as you say, it's an assumption.

But as above somewhere, the French are trying to get in and have the state draw a line in the sand with respect to the islam's supremacist view of itself and before it gets to the stage it's got to in Holland, where people have been murdered for "offending" islam, or appearing to be about to.

Beruthiel

sensibleken wrote: »

Again, has anyone seen anything to prove that in France women are being coerced or forced to wear it. Or is an assumption thats being made..

You would be wrong to think that muslim women in europe live free lives like the rest of us.
Many of them are living a life not that different from where their parents come from. They must still marry who their parents chose for them and if they go outside the rules of the family, there are consequences, often violent.

A little taste of what it's like for a muslim girl in france

MrVestek

robindch wrote: »

Having travelled widely within the Middle East, it's quite clear that it's naive to think, and silly to pretend, that wearing a burka has anything at all to do with freedom, choice or expression.

This debate is about returning freedom to people who've had it stolen from them.

Shouldn't they have the choice as to wether they want to be free from this 'tyranny' or not?

Surely the best route would be education. To help make them aware of the fact that now that they live in a different society that they have the right to choose to wear it or not and that there is no right or wrong decision for them to make.


If they choose to continue wearing it to uphold tradition and believe in their values then so be it. If they choose not to wear it then let them be happy with that decision.

I strongly disagree with any government or institution banning any form of clothing. Incidently I do not believe that people should be banned from wearing hoodies in public either.

Hoodie wearer =/= hooligan.

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its like how some women who get abused by their husbands come to think that they deserve and that their husbands are right to do it. The fact that they dont see anything wrong shouldn't stop the rest of the world from stopping their husbands from abusing them.

This ban doesn't stop men from oppressing women. It simply oppresses women in a different fashion.

Imagine a law that said women cannot drive cars with men in the passenger seats on the logic that some times some men make some women drive them around places when they don't want to.

Or a law that says a woman cannot be alone in a car with a man on the logic that some times when a man forces a woman into a car to rape her.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No-one is saying we should ban all clothes, just the ones used as oppresion.

But the logic is that all Muslim women who wear the burka are doing so under oppression from men which obviously not the case, any more than every woman driving a car with a man in the passenger seat is doing so because the man is threatening to beat her if she doesn't. Does this happen? Yes. Does it happen in all cases? No.

Restricting women's freedoms on the grounds that there is a small chance they might be doing something through coercion seems ridiculous.

Daftendirekt

I'm religious and support the ban

I've only just read the last page of posts, so apologies if this has been addressed already. I have a question for those who support the ban on the grounds of protecting the women who're forced to wear it.

If the wearing of the burka is banned, then presumably there'd be a penalty attached to wearing it in public, let's say a fine or imprisonment. So any woman who chooses to wear it would be fined or imprisoned, correct?

But what about a woman who is actually forced to wear it, by her husband for instance? I understand that the idea is that if it's made illegal to wear the burka in public places, then the husband will have no choice but to allow her to go outside without it, but what reason is there to think that this would happen in reality?

What if hubby doesn't care about forcing his wife to commit a crime? I mean, if he believes it's the will of the all powerful creator of the universe that women cover themselves up in public, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say he'd have no qualms about sending her out in full garb regardless of the ban, particularly since he isn't the one breaking the law (or alternatively, he might simply keep her imprisoned indoors, but right now I'm more interested in the other point).

So my question is, would you be happy for this woman (the woman this law is supposed to protect, remember) to bear the consequences of violating the ban, even though she'd have done so unwillingly? If not, what do you think should be done in this case?

sensibleken

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

There might have been a few, but certainly not many so basically, as you say, it's an assumption.

But as above somewhere, the French are trying to get in and have the state draw a line in the sand with respect to the islam's supremacist view of itself and before it gets to the stage it's got to in Holland, where people have been murdered for "offending" islam, or appearing to be about to.

I think its legislating based on these types of assumptions that makes islam back into a corner and makes it agressive.

as always, lunatics get the headlines, and this seems to me as legislation based on tabloid headlines. there was all sort of commotion in the 80s about video nasties causing murders which was a load of nonsense too.

I sure a lot of moderate muslims would support this ban, there are such things as muslim feminists. But in light of this and the minaret banning in switzerland etc. if i was a european muslim, even a moderate or liberal one I would see a growing amount of legislation designed to target me specifically.

I would worry about this type of legislation pushing more people to the extremes.

Rev Hellfire

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

Daftendirekt wrote: »

So my question is, would you be happy for this woman (the woman this law is supposed to protect, remember) to bear the consequences of violating the ban, even though she'd have done so unwillingly? If not, what do you think should be done in this case?

In such a case the husband is prosecuted if he forces her; if she willing breaks the law she gets prosecuted.

Just because you have an imaginary friend doesn't mean you get to ignore the law.

g5fd6ow0hseima

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

irishconvert wrote: »

There are probably two kinds of women who wear Burqa
1. Those who choose to do so as they believe it is an integral part of their religion

Clerarly the issue is with Islam and its teachings when its women are forced into hiding behind a facial-veil when in public. Isnt the reasoning behind the veil something along the lines that men should not be subjected to such temptations? Well why the fcuk dont men just deal with that themselves as opposed to subjugating their women. What sort of a faith preaches that anyway?

I can understand how this would have been prevalent centuries ago but wasnt there a fairly recent modern revival of the veil? The likes of backward theocrats like Sayyid Qutib who went on his travels to the USA in the 20th century and returned to Egypt to write about his disgust at men and women dancing in erotic fashions and women being too revealing etc... His writings got a fair amount of exposure amongst conservative circles in the Islamic world which leads me to think that a certain amount of reasoning behind the burqa is simply a reaction towards the liberalisation of women's rights in the western world.

I could be wrong, and maybe you could point me right.

Daftendirekt

I'm religious and support the ban

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

In such a case the husband is prosecuted if he forces her; if she willing breaks the law she gets prosecuted.

In that case, what's the point in banning the burka at all? Why not just treat it as a form of domestic abuse?

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

In such a case the husband is prosecuted if he forces her; if she willing breaks the law she gets prosecuted.

If it is possible to demonstrate that a woman is being forced to wear a burka by her husband then why is the burka ban necessary?

Why not just ban men forcing women to wear a burka?

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

Wicknight wrote: »

There is a rather ridiculous nonsense in telling women they can't wear what they wish in order to protect them from being dictated what to wear.

+1.
the french government is guilty of what it's trying to prevent.

g5fd6ow0hseima

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

magicbastarder wrote: »

+1.
the french government is guilty of what it's trying to prevent.

I dont see it that way. It's more like:

Wear what you want as long as you dont conceal your face when in Public.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its telling people what they can and cannot wear. Its the same thing.

i know i'm splitting hairs here, but how is the law relating to public decency telling people what they cannot wear?
it essentially just means that you cannot expose your genitals in public. it is neither mandating nor banning a specific item of clothing. and as i was wondering above, does the burka ban in france ban covering your face, or does is specifically ban full islamic face veils?

robindch

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

sensibleken wrote: »

I think its legislating based on these types of assumptions that makes islam back into a corner and makes it agressive.

Yes, that's right. But equally, sitting back and doing nothing lets religion become aggressively acquisitive too.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

Mabel Clever Brush wrote: »

I dont see it that way. It's more like:

Wear what you want as long as you dont conceal your face when in Public.

so i can't wear a mask going to a fancy dress party? or if i am, how do they define the exceptions?

robindch

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

Wicknight wrote: »

Why not just ban men forcing women to wear a burka?

Because the woman will need to go to the police, inform on her husband/"guardian" or whatever and have the police show up to deliver a lecture.

I think that's pretty unlikely.

Zombrex

Mabel Clever Brush wrote: »

I dont see it that way. It's more like:

Wear what you want as long as you dont conceal your face when in Public.

Have they actually banned people (all people) from concealing their face in public?

And why is concealing your face in public bad?