Burka ban

Beruthiel

Wicknight wrote: »

When did we decide that all Muslim women are incapable of deciding what is for their own good?

In an awful lot of cases, that is just not an option for them. Many of them pay the price for going against family rules. Some even die for it.
Not that this ban will make a damn bit of difference to that sort of crap.

MrVestek

I wear a bow tie. Bow ties are cool.

Should I be banned from wearing the bow tie because my future ex-wife and current bit on the side think it looks awful? No...

Should I be banned from wearing it because the world thinks that bow ties are awful? No...

Same with the Burka. The argument for alot of this seems to be 'ohhhh they're obscuring their identity... they could rob a bank' etc etc.

When was the last time you saw the Might Morphin Burka Bank Robbers in their latest escapades? Yeah I don't remember that ever happening either...

Hasn't anyone here ever worn a scarf and a coat when they were cold? I bet all people could see were your eyes...

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

MrPudding wrote: »

No, I said they were brainwashed. As I took pains to explain, whilst you might equate brainwashing with mental retardation, I do not.

Similar to the brainwashing of Americans/Europeans that all Islamics are suicide bombers and oppressors of women? That kind of brainwashing?

old_aussie

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

Achilles wrote: »

I wear a bow tie. Bow ties are cool.

When was the last time you saw the Might Morphin Burka Bank Robbers in their latest escapades? Yeah I don't remember that ever happening either...

http://themoderatevoice.com/71590/male-robber-wearing-burka-sparks-debate-in-australia-over-banning-the-burka/


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1273914/Robber-wearing-burka-leads-raiders-jewellery-shop-heist.html

http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Male-Robber-Wearing-Burka-Sparks-Debate-in-Australia-Over-Banning-the-Burka-2443053.html

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/burqa-wearing-robbers-hold-up-a-french-post-office/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7189090/Burka-wearing-gunmen-raid-French-bank.html

There's another 20 plus pages of links on Google alone

irishconvert

Has the French government had any kind of consultation process with women who wear the burqa? Or have they decided to ban this without even getting the view of the people it will affect?

irishconvert

old_aussie wrote: »

http://themoderatevoice.com/71590/male-robber-wearing-burka-sparks-debate-in-australia-over-banning-the-burka/


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1273914/Robber-wearing-burka-leads-raiders-jewellery-shop-heist.html

http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Male-Robber-Wearing-Burka-Sparks-Debate-in-Australia-Over-Banning-the-Burka-2443053.html

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/burqa-wearing-robbers-hold-up-a-french-post-office/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7189090/Burka-wearing-gunmen-raid-French-bank.html

There's another 20 plus pages of links on Google alone

People also wear clown masks when robbing banks. Do you want to ban them also?

Dades

irishconvert, would you prefer if people were honest in that their support for the ban stems from a dislike of Islam seeping into their own culture?

Would that make such a ban easier to accept than if people said it was right solely on the basis of "women's rights"?

irishconvert

Dades wrote: »

irishconvert, would you prefer if people were honest in that their support for the ban stems from a dislike of Islam seeping into their own culture?

Would that make such a ban easier to accept than if people said it was right solely on the basis of "women's rights"?

Yes, I think it is best if people are honest. It's easier to deal with a problem if people voice their real concerns.

robindch

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

irishconvert wrote: »

Yes, I think it is best if people are honest. It's easier to deal with a problem if people voice their real concerns.

Are you saying that you believe that people are just pretending to be concerned about the oppression of women?

Dades

robindch wrote: »

Are you saying that you believe that people are just pretending to be concerned about the oppression of women?

tbh, I'd say some people voicing their support are. :pac:

That said, the real reason - i.e. a dislike of Islamic culture - will no doubt be partly because of it's treatment of women. So it's not a clear cut distinction.

robindch

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

Dades wrote: »

So it's not a clear cut distinction.

No, it's not clear at all. However, irishconvert's claim is that people are being dishonest when they say they're concerned about the oppression of women when their real reason is a dislike of islam itself.

I'm trying to establish if this claim is genuine, or whether it's an attempt to reframe the debate as "islamophobia".

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Are you saying that you believe that people are just pretending to be concerned about the oppression of women?

I am.

If people wanted to do something about the oppression of women why do it with something that effects such a tiny tiny tiny percentage of the worlds women?

As Roman Catholics (as I presume most here are or were) why are we not canvassing Rome for equal status of women? A religion which has openly oppressed women for centuries and still does.

This is nothing more than an Anti-Islamic law being pushed by far right parties.

Will it stop terrorism/crime... NO
Will it stop the oppression of these women... NO
Will it take away some of YOUR civil liberties... YES

Morbert

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

Scotty # wrote: »

I am.

If people wanted to do something about the oppression of women why do it with something that effects such a tiny tiny tiny percentage of the worlds women?

As Roman Catholics (as I presume most here are or were) why are we not canvassing Rome for equal status of women? A religion which has openly oppressed women for centuries and still does.

This is nothing more than an Anti-Islamic law being pushed by far right parties.

Will it stop terrorism/crime... NO
Will it stop the oppression of these women... NO
Will it take away some of YOUR civil liberties... YES

The Catholic Church are not covering women from head to toe in fear that they might be seen in public.

Zombrex

Beruthiel wrote: »

In an awful lot of cases, that is just not an option for them.

Granted but when did we decide it was in all cases?

A tiny tiny tiny percentage of them die for it and so far no one has explained how this ban is going to do anything about that (which I recognize you said as well)

I'm all for helping women in abusive situations, but I'm at a loss to see how is banning what they can wear going to help that?

If a woman has a strict husband or father who demands she cover up when outside and the law says she cannot then all that will happen is the father or husband now demands she doesn't go outside.

That to me isn't an improvement

Morbert

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

irishconvert wrote: »

People also wear clown masks when robbing banks. Do you want to ban them also?

Yes

Rev Hellfire

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

Wicknight wrote: »

If a woman has a strict husband or father who demands she cover up when outside and the law says she cannot then all that will happen is the father or husband now demands she doesn't go outside.

That to me isn't an improvement

It isn't initially, but what it does do is starve the practise of the oxygen it needs to survive. Ultimately unless the husband wishes to do all the shopping, ferrying of children etc all the while holding down a job something will have to give.
The practicalities of simply living will get in the way.

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It isn't initially, but what it does do is starve the practise of the oxygen it needs to survive. Ultimately unless the husband wishes to do all the shopping, ferrying of children etc all the while holding down a job something will have to give.
The practicalities of simply living will get in the way.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You don't seem to mind that these women might be oppressed... once they're not oppressed where you can see them.

Malari

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

Scotty # wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You don't seem to mind that these women might be oppressed... once they're not oppressed where you can see them.

Yeah, that's how I feel. I don't want to see burqas because I think it's a sign of oppression here. What's wrong with that?

Rev Hellfire

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

Scotty # wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You don't seem to mind that these women might be oppressed... once they're not oppressed where you can see them.

Quite the reverse.

MrVestek

old_aussie wrote: »

http://themoderatevoice.com/71590/male-robber-wearing-burka-sparks-debate-in-australia-over-banning-the-burka/


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1273914/Robber-wearing-burka-leads-raiders-jewellery-shop-heist.html

http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Male-Robber-Wearing-Burka-Sparks-Debate-in-Australia-Over-Banning-the-Burka-2443053.html

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/burqa-wearing-robbers-hold-up-a-french-post-office/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7189090/Burka-wearing-gunmen-raid-French-bank.html

There's another 20 plus pages of links on Google alone

You argument is invalid. They were mostly people who had already planned on robbing said bank with some kind of garment.

Should we ban the general public from wearing face obscuring scarves, ski masks when it's winter, hoodies when it's cold... coats? Ripped sleeves? Tights?

All of these things and more could have the potential for covering one's face during a bank raid.

So we're going with that excuse for widely excepted xenophobia then are we?

MrVestek

Malari wrote: »

Yeah, that's how I feel. I don't want to see burqas because I think it's a sign of oppression here. What's wrong with that?

Everything. There's lots of oppression in today's Irish society you just don't see it quite a planely and 'in your face' as someone wearing a burka.

Sexual repression... xenophobia... racism... equal rights for the gay community...

I'll tell you what... why not just ban sexuall suggestive t-shirts?

'Stop staring at my tits' and the like that some women tend to wear. Surely they're just doing other woman an injustic and making themselves highly sexualised objects to be used and abused right?

It couldn't possibly be someone just wearing a t-shirt because they think that it's a funny joke... I mean come on that idea is totally preposterous.

Zombrex

Malari wrote: »

I don't want to see burqas because I think it's a sign of oppression here. What's wrong with that?

Telling women they cannot wear a burka is a form of oppression. In fact it is pretty much exactly the same as the type of oppression that everyone is against.

So what is the difference?

Malari

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

Wicknight wrote: »

Telling women they cannot wear a burka is a form of oppression. In fact it is pretty much exactly the same as the type of oppression that everyone is against.

So what is the difference?

I don't agree with that. It's not exactly the same in the Western world. I don't like the idea that it would be seen as acceptable that some people think women should cover themselves up 100%, whether they are being forced to do it or whether they have been taught that it's appropriate.

And by the way, do I need to state that I am also against all other forms of oppression too?

Mark Hamill

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

Achilles wrote: »

They may end up coming across it via other means. The point is is that be it right or wrong in our eyes it's part of their culture.

The bigger point should be that they are no longer in their culture, and that when they come to our culture, we should be allowed to tell what parts of their culture are offensive/oppresive/barbarian.

Achilles wrote: »

Let me ask you this... what are we doing by banning the Burka? Some would call that oppression...

All laws are oppressive. Never stopped anyone before, most recognise that just because someone wants to do something, it means they should always get to do it.

Zombrex

Malari wrote: »

I don't like the idea that it would be seen as acceptable that some people think women should cover themselves up 100%

But that is the same argument the oppressing Muslims use, that it is inappropriate that a Muslim woman to display skin so it isn't allowed

You are just saying it the other way around, that it is inappropriate that a Muslim woman doesn't display skin so it isn't allowed.

No one is asking what the Muslim woman actually wants to do

Malari wrote: »

And by the way, do I need to state that I am also against all other forms of oppression too?

Well yes when you seem to be actively supporting a form of oppression.

Mark Hamill

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

Wicknight wrote: »

The burka isn't a law.

I hope you would agree there is a difference between a woman saying "I don't want to be alone in a car with a man" with a law that says woman cannot be alone in a car with a man.

I meant the law that requires the burka. Just take your law about women not allowed to be in a car with a man in case he rapes her and take it to the logical conclusion- that men dont need the car to rape the woman. Its a short leap to getting all women to cover up in all situations where they cant be raped. Your example law is just a milder version of the religious law that is being outlawed.

Wicknight wrote: »

You could say that about anything. Ultimately people have a right to choose to do something stupid because they believe their particular sky god wants them to because they were taught this by their father.

Are we going to outlaw religion now?

We already outlaw things like FGM and honour killings, so whats the problem. People are free to believe they should do things because their god tells them, but that by no means they should be free to actually do those things.

Wicknight wrote: »

So coercing women to do something because you feel it is the best thing for them even if they disagree, is wrong (ie Muslims encouraging or forcing women to wear a burka because they think Allah requires it),

but enacting a law that forces women to do something because you think it is the best thing for them, even if they disagree, is ok?

No, because like I've already said, the burka isnt religous (most muslim states outside of the middle east and afghanistan dont require it all). It is a cultural device for male dominance and is hiding behind religion so it wont be criticised.

Wicknight wrote: »

What is the difference between a Muslim father saying to his Muslim daughter You have to wear the burka, this is for your own good, and the state saying to a Muslim woman You cannot wear the burka, this is for your own good

One is telling the truth, the other isn't.

Wicknight wrote: »

When did we decide that all Muslim women are incapable of deciding what is for their own good?

When they started wearing the burka. Its not that uncommon for vast swathes of people to hold to an incorrect idea (religion, MMR cause autism, Big Brother is good tv), and its not a bad thing to tell them how they are wrong and to try and prevent them from hurting themsleves (and the rest of us).

Mark Hamill

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

Wicknight wrote: »

Granted but when did we decide it was in all cases?

A tiny tiny tiny percentage of them die for it and so far no one has explained how this ban is going to do anything about that (which I recognize you said as well)

I'm all for helping women in abusive situations, but I'm at a loss to see how is banning what they can wear going to help that?

If a woman has a strict husband or father who demands she cover up when outside and the law says she cannot then all that will happen is the father or husband now demands she doesn't go outside.

That to me isn't an improvement

What is then? What would you propose is done?

Mark Hamill

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

Wicknight wrote: »

Telling women they cannot wear a burka is a form of oppression. In fact it is pretty much exactly the same as the type of oppression that everyone is against.

So what is the difference?

Why it is done. Every law is oppressive.

Malari

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

Wicknight wrote: »

But that is the same argument the oppressing Muslims use, that it is inappropriate that a Muslim woman to display skin so it isn't allowed

You are just saying it the other way around, that it is inappropriate that a Muslim woman doesn't display skin so it isn't allowed.

No one is asking what the Muslim woman actually wants to do

I'm saying here. Not allowed here. Our culture does not support the idea that women should cover themselves up because otherwise men would be tempted (according to "god"). Its the reason behind why burqas are worn.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes when you seem to be actively supporting a form of oppression.

Oh come on, you are really stretching it.

magicbastarder

I'm religious and support the ban

i've heard a few people use the argument 'we're expected to behave in a certain way when we visit their societies, so what's wrong with them being expected to behave our way when they come to our societies?'

which is a fine argument as long as you're trying to justify placing our society on the same level as theirs.

sonicthebadger*

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

Scotty # wrote: »

So you want to live in a society were dark sunglasses are banned in public? Your scarf must be below your chin? Where your hood can only come to the top of your forehead, any lower and you may be arrested!?! Brides, Irish ones, can no longer wear veils?

Do any of the pro-ban people actually realise what YOU will have to give up to see this ban go through? I doubt it. But then again... I see this ban as purely an anti-Islam ban (As it more or less openly is in France) and has very little to do with the oppression of women. If people really wanted to combat the oppression of women then why start with one that effects so few?

I know it's difficult Scotty but please try actually reading my posts.

robindch

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

Wicknight wrote: »

you seem to be actively supporting a form of oppression.

Are you claiming that this photo shows women who are fully free and able to express their individual identities, each one as they see fit?

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What is then? What would you propose is done?

The same thing we have been doing with oppressed women in the west for the last 50 years, the creation of support groups and refuges where women who are oppressed can turn for support.

That is another thing about this ban that seems pointless, simply masking the visibility of oppression does nothing to actually tackle the underlying oppression.

It is like saying that the best way to tackle domestic violence is to require that builders make walls thicker so we can't hear it any more.

Even if the burka is banned that does nothing to actually help a woman stuck in an abusive or oppressive relationship with their husband or father.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Are you claiming that this photo shows women who are fully free and able to express their individual identities, each one as they see fit?

I don't know any of the women in that picture that would be impossible to tell.

But given that we have plenty of Muslim women protesting this ban it seems unsupported to say that every Muslim woman who wears a burka is oppressed.



But my point above was that even if they all are this isn't going to do anything to actually help oppressed women

Mark Hamill

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

robindch wrote: »

Are you claiming that this photo shows women who are fully free and able to express their individual identities, each one as they see fit?

I look at the picture and I hear that scene from Life of Brian where the crowd is outside Brians house and they all say "we are individuals" but one says "I'm not"

Mark Hamill

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

Wicknight wrote: »

The same thing we have been doing with oppressed women in the west for the last 50 years, the creation of support groups and refuges where women who are oppressed can turn for support.

But what makes you think these women will go? The women who feel oppressed wont be allowed go, and the ones who are brainwashed wont want to go.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is another thing about this ban that seems pointless, simply masking the visibility of oppression does nothing to actually tackle the underlying oppression.

Admittadly, doing both the ban and the support groups would be better by itself, but the ban will have an effect. A family cannot function if the man has to everything (especially when that man is used to the woman doing everything)

Wicknight wrote: »

Even if the burka is banned that does nothing to actually help a woman stuck in an abusive or oppressive relationship with their husband or father.

We've had well woman centres and have taught about the wrongs of sexism and oppression for years, something else needs to be done.

Zombrex

Malari wrote: »

I'm saying here. Not allowed here. Our culture does not support the idea that women should cover themselves up because otherwise men would be tempted (according to "god").

Our culture supports the idea that if you want to cover your face you can.



It also supports the idea that the State is not going to dictate how to think about your religion, even if it seems strange and weird to us



If you restrict those things for a certain group you are oppressing them, pure and simple.

Malari wrote: »

Oh come on, you are really stretching it.

How? You are doing pretty much exactly what the oppressing Muslims you complain about are doing, dictating to Muslim women what they can and cannot wear.

You seem to think the difference is that you have a good reason and are doing it for their own good.

Isn't that exactly the logic used for the burka in the first place, that it is for the own good of the women?

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But what makes you think these women will go? The women who feel oppressed wont be allowed go, and the ones who are brainwashed wont want to go.

A tiny percentage of abused women go to shelters. You still need them available for if or when they do come.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Admittadly, doing both the ban and the support groups would be better by itself, but the ban will have an effect. A family cannot function if the man has to everything (especially when that man is used to the woman doing everything)

How does it have the same effect? The woman is still trapped in an oppressive relationship?

You think the man will suddenly stop being oppressive just because the woman no longer wears a burka? Muslim men who follow extreme views of the religion oppress all aspects of a woman's life, from who she can see to when she can go out to what she can read or watch.

How does this help any of that?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We've had well woman centres and have taught about the wrongs of sexism and oppression for years, something else needs to be done.

Why? What makes you think these things aren't working as well as anything else could work?

robindch

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

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't know any of the women in that picture that would be impossible to tell.

Well, bearing in mind that most people differ in some way from each other, does that picture look like what you'd expect a group of women who are able to express their individual identities would look like?

Or does it look more like a group of women who have been made to conform to a single group identity?

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Well, bearing in mind that most people differ in some way from each other, does that picture look like what you'd expect a group of women who are able to express their individual identities would look like?

If that is a gathering of Muslim women who all believe that wearing the burka is appropriate, then yes.

If I took a photo at the blond hair appreciation society and they all had blond hair I wouldn't think that they were having their individuality oppressed :pac:




BTW I'm not saying that some Muslim women are not oppressed. Finding examples of oppressed Muslim women is not hard. But a lot of non-Muslim women are oppressed, we don't start banning things like low cut tops because some men make their wives wear them, or jeans because some fathers make their daughters over up their legs.

Oppressing women in the same manner that we are trying to stop, under the pre-text of freeing, them is just silly.

sensibleken

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The bigger point should be that they are no longer in their culture, and that when they come to our culture, we should be allowed to tell what parts of their culture are offensive/oppresive/barbarian.

I think this is a problem. they are in their culture, they are french citizens and it affects people of french origin. you dont have to be an immigrant to wear the burka. plenty of ideas originate from the middle east but we dont regard christianity or islamic numerals as foreign. their culture is french also and they have more of a right to a say than us paddys.

Mark Hamill

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

Wicknight wrote: »

A tiny percentage of abused women go to shelters. You still need them available for if or when they do come.

So just by having abuse shelters, we can see that abuse still exists. We need to do more things to stop it.

Wicknight wrote: »

How does it have the same effect? The woman is still trapped in an oppressive relationship?

I didn't say the same effect.

Wicknight wrote: »

You think the man will suddenly stop being oppressive just because the woman no longer wears a burka? Muslim men who follow extreme views of the religion oppress all aspects of a woman's life, from who she can see to when she can go out to what she can read or watch.

How does this help any of that?

Rev Hellfire said it already. Eventually the man will have to realise that they will have to do everything outside the house-shopping, taxiiing kids around, earn a living. The strain will break them.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why? What makes you think these things aren't working as well as anything else could work?

You said it yourself in this very post: "A tiny percentage of abused women go to shelters". Women come to expect the abuse, accept it even. Giving them a free choice way out is useless when they cant make the choice.

robindch

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

Wicknight wrote: »

If that is a gathering of Muslim women who all believe that wearing the burka is appropriate, then yes.

And do you believe that each of the -- presumably -- women under each of those veils has been able to make a genuinely free and unencumbered choice to wear it?

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

And do you believe that each of the -- presumably -- women under each of those veils has been able to make a genuinely free and unencumbered choice to wear it?

Like I already said I don't know. Without knowing each individual women and their circumstances it is impossible to say.

You could take 10 Muslim women in France after the ban who aren't wearing burka and ask the exact same question, couldn't you?

What is the difference?

Mark Hamill

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

sensibleken wrote: »

I think this is a problem. they are in their culture, they are french citizens and it affects people of french origin. you dont have to be an immigrant to wear the burka.

I'm not just talking about France, I'm talking in general and anyway, while some of the people may be still living in their birth culture, they are living according to a foreign culture. What I said still applies.

sensibleken wrote: »

plenty of ideas originate from the middle east but we dont regard christianity or islamic numerals as foreign. their culture is french also and they have more of a right to a say than us paddys.

Which is why we are talking about banning the burka, not islam, as its the burka aspect that is oppressive, barbaric and nonsenical (in this case). We may have christianity here, but it didn't stop us banning (christianity supported) slavery. We dont have to accept every aspect of an belief.

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So just by having abuse shelters, we can see that abuse still exists. We need to do more things to stop it.

Ok, suggest something that actually help women escape abusive men.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Rev Hellfire said it already. Eventually the man will have to realise that they will have to do everything outside the house-shopping, taxiiing kids around, earn a living. The strain will break them.

Break them to do what? Allowing their wife out without a burka, or never oppressing them in any of the other million ways an abusive man can oppress a woman?

Irish men were oppressing Irish women for centuries without the need for a burka. The idea that Muslim men will stop oppressing their daughters or wives simply because they cannot wear a burka anymore is, frankly, stupid.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You said it yourself in this very post: "A tiny percentage of abused women go to shelters". Women come to expect the abuse, accept it even. Giving them a free choice way out is useless when they cant make the choice.

It isn't useless, it is the only thing you can do. You can't force a woman to realize she is being oppressed and needs help.

Dades

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Which is why we are talking about banning the burka, not islam, as its the burka aspect that is oppressive, barbaric and nonsenical (in this case).

Or, the burka is the symbolic "face" of Islam and it sends a message that western society has grave reservations about it's practices. Maybe.

Nemi

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

And do you believe that each of the -- presumably -- women under each of those veils has been able to make a genuinely free and unencumbered choice to wear it?

For what its worth, I suspect they haven't. But isn't the issue at stake whether we feel that blondes in Europe have a genuinely free and unencumbered choice between wearing burkas or bikinis? If we ban burkas, then we're presumably requiring women to show at least some skin.

This seems to, pretty quickly, get us into ludicrous territory. Should ears be covered or not? How about necks? This just isn't a place where we should be regulating. If the burka is a bad thing, and you leave it to free choice, then people won't choose it.

robindch

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

Wicknight wrote: »

Like I already said I don't know. Without knowing each individual women and their circumstances it is impossible to say.

You're avoiding the question quite heroically, so let me ask two grindingly precise questions which won't ask you to put yourself in the mind of somebody whom you can't even see

In your experience of a free society composed of individuals with differing tastes and wishes, have you ever seen every woman dress up, all the time, in the same identical colorless and shapeless clothes?

And if your experience of a free society suggests that women don't willingly choose to dress up identically, then what does that make you think of the level of freedom in a society in which women do appear to choose to dress identically?

Or are you genuinely arguing that women are fully liberated in a place like Afghanistan?

Malari

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

Wicknight wrote: »

Our culture supports the idea that if you want to cover your face you can.

It's not just about covering the face. It's about why they think the face being covered is a good thing.

Wicknight wrote: »

It also supports the idea that the State is not going to dictate how to think about your religion, even if it seems strange and weird to us

Well I actually think that maybe it should.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you restrict those things for a certain group you are oppressing them, pure and simple.


How? You are doing pretty much exactly what the oppressing Muslims you complain about are doing, dictating to Muslim women what they can and cannot wear.

You seem to think the difference is that you have a good reason and are doing it for their own good.

Isn't that exactly the logic used for the burka in the first place, that it is for the own good of the women?

No, I think that the idea that women should cover themselves up because of religion is an unacceptable idea in the culture of the Western World. If it gives the idea that Europe is not keen on supporting the view that women should cover up that is associated with Islam teaching I'm ok with that. It's more for our own good than Muslim women's own good.