Belgium bans the Burka

prinz

wes wrote: »

A person can be pretty drunk, and not break those laws, and can still make someone uncomfortable, and not break those laws..

A person can cover up in 'Islamic' clothing without breaking the law against the burka too.

wes

prinz wrote: »

Human sacrifices should be allowed now should they?

No of course not, but I don't think a government has any right to tell a Religous group what there beliefs are or are not.

Still, murder which directly hurts another person, is not the same as a Buraq which make someone feel uncomfortable.

Einhard

Angie Moldy Police wrote: »

Come on now, lets not pull the sexist card... especially when trying to defend islam, lol.

To presume that a woman cannot make up her own mind about what to wear, and that the state must step in and tell her what she cannot wear, in order to protect her is patronising, condescending and, yes, sexist. Sure, some Muslim women who wear the burqa would probably be happy to see the back of it. But if I were a successful Muslim woman, with a career etc, and I was told that I wasn't to be trusted to make my own decisions I would, as I stated, feel pretty aggrieved.

Nobody should be permitted to be fully veiled like that in a public place.

Why not? I mean, if there was a sudden upsurge in burqa clad, Muslim bankrobbers or muggers, I'd agree with you. But there's not, so I can't help feeling that much of the opposition is informed by unease, and perhaps prejudice.

Einhard

prinz wrote: »

If I want to carry a handgun down my trousers it isn't really harming anyone, but there are laws against it.

You can't splatter my brains all over the pavement with a burqa though...

wes

prinz wrote: »

A person can cover up in 'Islamic' clothing without breaking the law against the burka too.

Great, so we should ban all those as well, after all, it is about security right? So we need to ban hats, make up, any kind of item that can conceal people identities then.

prinz

wes wrote: »

I don't think any government should be telling people, how they should practice there Religion..

wes wrote: »

No of course not, but I don't think a government has any right to tell a Religous group what there beliefs are or are not.

Can you see the difference in these two statements? The government/this law is not telling people what to believe. There's a massive difference between believing something and practising it.

Edit:- Of course this is largely irrelevant because the burka is not a requirement of the belief in, or practice of Islam.

prinz

wes wrote: »

Great, so we should ban all those as well, after all, it is about security right? So we need to ban hats, make up, any kind of item that can conceal people identities then.

Nope. Only when it is taken to extremes as in the burka, pillow case with eye holes, balaclava etc.

wes

prinz wrote: »

Can you see the difference in these two statements? The government/this law is not telling people what to believe. There's a massive difference between believing something and practising it.

Fair enough, I was being inconsistent, but wearing a burqa is not the same a killing someone.

Einhard

prinz wrote: »

You are against this law because it supposedly targets a significant minority... on the basis that another significant minority maybe be supporting it?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'm against the law because it purports to deny a woman the right to choose her clothing on the basis that she is incapable of making an informed decision on the matter.

The state tells me I can't legally walk around Dublin completely naked. Am I aggrieved....eh no.

Walking around naked offends general public decency and thus it is banned in public places. Wheter it should cause such offence is another thing, but the fact is it does, and the state acts. I don't see how a woman covering her face offends in the same way. And if it does, then surely micro skirts, and other forms of skimpy attire should be prohibited?

wes

prinz wrote: »

Nope. Only when it is taken to extremes as in the burka, pillow case with eye holes, balaclava etc.

You can conceal your id, without using any of the above. Make up will do the job just fine, as will other methods. There is as much of security threat from people using make up to disguise themselves, as there is with those other methods. So using that logic make up should be banned.

gbee

I agree. If I WANT to see women in Burka's I'd go to a Muslim country or watch them on Islamic TV.

As for the Irish in Islamic countries, if they wear their mini skirts in public they will be arrested and possibly worse ... what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say.

Women have had a terrible time from all these Jewish based religions, Eve, Jezebel, Deborah, Magdalene, Salome and more all tempted men in one form or another, either from complete sexual seduction to murder and virgin birth ~ the root of all evils ~ apparently men cannot be trusted not to cover all women and it's the woman's fault when it happens.

U know? Maybe they are tight ... but for my tastes, a pretty girl in a mini dress any day of the week please.

prinz

Einhard wrote: »

Walking around naked offends general public decency and thus it is banned in public places. Wheter it should cause such offence is another thing, but the fact is it does, and the state acts.

If Belgium held a referendum on this and the majority of the people backed the law would that make it ok in your opinion?

Einhard wrote: »

I don't see how a woman covering her face offends in the same way.

I do.

Einhard wrote: »

And if it does, then surely micro skirts, and other forms of skimpy attire should be prohibited?

Logic fail.

wes

gbee wrote: »

I agree. If I WANT to see women in Burka's I'd go to a Muslim country or watch them on Islamic TV.

Should it not be about what the Woman wants?!?

gbee wrote: »

I
As for the Irish in Islamic countries, if they wear their mini skirts in public they will be arrested and possibly worse ... what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say.

So, we should emulate countries whom laws, you disagree with?

Einhard

Ok, it really comes down this to me. Personal choices should only be interfered with by the state when that choice infringes on the safety and/or legal rights of others. Thus I can live with the ban on smoking in public places as it harms the health of non-smokers. I cannot see however, how the wearing of a face veil impinges on my rights, my wellbuing, or my safety. So why should it be legislated against? As I said before, were burqa clad crime on the rise in this country I could see some merit in the proposal, but it's not.

It might be interesting to have a look at the threads on the banning of new minarets in Switzerland. I'd be willing to wager that a proportion of those voiciferous in their support of this law were equally so in supporting the Swiss decision...

Nodin

Angie Moldy Police wrote: »

I for one support this action, fcuk them if they think they can go to another country and pressure the government into changing their ways. If you don't like it, fcuk back to where you came from.

Did they try to pressure the Government into wearing the Burka?

prinz

wes wrote: »

You can conceal your id, without using any of the above. Make up will do the job just fine, as will other methods. There is as much of security threat from people using make up to disguise themselves, as there is with those other methods. So using that logic make up should be banned.

Again you are going down the hyperbolic route. I am talking about extremes. You can kill people with a biro, does that mean we can't have a law against carrying guns, knives etc?

Nodin

Einhard wrote: »

It might be interesting to have a look at the threads on the banning of new minarets in Switzerland. I'd be willing to wager that a proportion of those voiciferous in their support of this law were equally so in supporting the Swiss decision...

Bang on there.

prinz

Einhard wrote: »

Personal choices should only be interfered with by the state when that choice infringes on the safety and/or legal rights of others.

If it is my personal choice to carry a samurai sword down the leg of my pants is that ok?

Einhard wrote: »

It might be interesting to have a look at the threads on the banning of new minarets in Switzerland. I'd be willing to wager that a proportion of those voiciferous in their support of this law were equally so in supporting the Swiss decision...

What is your point here? I'd be willing to wager a similar proportion were against it.....

Einhard

gbee wrote: »

As for the Irish in Islamic countries, if they wear their mini skirts in public they will be arrested and possibly worse ... what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say.

In Turkey they wouldn't. I was in Syria and Jordan and saw girls wearing short skirts. Indeed one of friends did on a numer of occasions. She wasn't arrested. So basically your contention is that we should be less tolerant of difference than Turkey or Indonesia, or other such countries?

gbee

wes wrote: »

So, we should emulate countries whom laws, you disagree with?

Did I say I disagreed with? No, the point is THEY will arrest and imprison foreign women who do not conform to their dress code ... I actually agree.

We are decadent in the west, we like to show off ~ even provocatively.

Einhard

prinz wrote: »

If it is my personal choice to carry a samurai sword down the leg of my pants is that ok?

Eh, you can't slice my head off with a burqa...

You get the point?

What is your point here? I'd be willing to wager a similar proportion were against it

My point is that a good number of those supporting this law do so not because of their concern for the welfare of Muslim women, or their health etc but do so out of an anti-Muslim prejudice which is very much evident these days. I'm not accusing you, or any individual of this, but pointing out that it does inform much of the debate on such matters.

Einhard

prinz wrote: »

If Belgium held a referendum on this and the majority of the people backed the law would that make it ok in your opinion?

I accept the law. I just don't think it's right. And I wouldn't think it right no matter how many people voted on it. Democratic participation isn't an antidote to prejudice.

prinz

Einhard wrote: »

Eh, you can't slice my head off with a burqa...
You get the point?

No, not really. Either a personal choice is ok or it isn't. I could stab you in the neck with a biro.

Einhard wrote: »

My point is that a good number of those supporting this law do so not because of their concern for the welfare of Muslim women, or their health etc but do so out of an anti-Muslim prejudice which is very much evident these days. I'm not accusing you, or any individual of this, but pointing out that it does inform much of the debate on such matters.

So if a significant minority is prejudiced we can't enact laws now?

Splendour

wes wrote: »

I don't think any government should be telling people, how they should practice there Religion. That is tantamount to state sponsered Religion imho.

What I'm not talking about any government telling people what to wear. I trying clarigy what Muslims themselves read in the Koran as to how women should dress. Is there a quote in the Koran that states women must wear burkas?

prinz

Einhard wrote: »

I accept the law. I just don't think it's right. And I wouldn't think it right no matter how many people voted on it. Democratic participation isn't an antidote to prejudice.

You just defended the laws against public indecency based on the fact that the state acts when the public want something acted upon. Now if the public want to ban burkas it has to be driven by prejudice and obviously unacceptable?

Einhard

prinz wrote: »

No, not really. Either a personal choice is ok or it isn't. I could stab you in the neck with a biro.

This is a ridiculous argument. What harm do you derive from a woman wearing a burqa? Seriously, stop with these non-sensical responses.

So if a significant minority is prejudiced we can't enact laws now?

Are you even reading my posts? Just because a law is enacted doesn't make it right.

prinz

Einhard wrote: »

This is a ridiculous argument. What harm do you derive from a woman wearing a burqa? Seriously, stop with these non-sensical responses.

What is non-sensical?

Einhard

prinz wrote: »

You just defended the laws against public indecency based on the fact that the state acts when the public want something acted upon. Now if the public want to ban burkas it has to be driven by prejudice and obviously unacceptable?

I didn't defend the laws against public indecency. I stated the rationale behind them. Are you seriously sueggesting that covering one's face with a piece of cloth is indecent? Really?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Wow this topic has gone to the dogs...

wes wrote: »

Again, I was replying to someone who mentioned how Burqa make people feel uncomfortable. You aren't addressing the point I was making.

Your point being that they should be allowed to wear what they wish as they do not hinder other people? Correct me if I am wrong.

I can disguise myself in any number of ways, without covering my face. So then we should ban make up, and any other methods of identity concealment as well. Afterall, it is a security issue.

I have yet to see somebody wearing that much makeup that I can only see their eyes. You cannot equate wearing a full veil to wearing make up.

Also, if you are desquised, and obviously so, you will arouse suspicion. I would not be surprised if you were approached by the law and asked for ID.

The burka is the same as a balaclava, but one of them hides behind the weak religion defense.

wes wrote: »

No of course not, but I don't think a government has any right to tell a Religous group what there beliefs are or are not.

They are not doing this.

Still, murder which directly hurts another person, is not the same as a Buraq which make someone feel uncomfortable.

This debate did not occure because Belgians were uncomfortable. You should not be permitted to hide your identity in a public place, regardless of what religion, race, sex you are.

Einhard wrote: »

To presume that a woman cannot make up her own mind about what to wear, and that the state must step in and tell her what she cannot wear, in order to protect her is patronising, condescending and, yes, sexist.

The sexist card fails, epicly in this thread.

You think this law is there to protect womens rights? lol.

Sure, some Muslim women who wear the burqa would probably be happy to see the back of it. But if I were a successful Muslim woman, with a career etc, and I was told that I wasn't to be trusted to make my own decisions I would, as I stated, feel pretty aggrieved.

They are being told they are not allowed a certain item of clothing that hides their identity, which is pretty logical.

Why not? I mean, if there was a sudden upsurge in burqa clad, Muslim bankrobbers or muggers, I'd agree with you. But there's not, so I can't help feeling that much of the opposition is informed by unease, and perhaps prejudice.

Basing your arguement, assuming that the opposition are ignorant of islam is quite silly. The race, sex, and religion card have been played out already. It has nothing to do with that, those cards are spent and cannot be used again

wes wrote: »

You can conceal your id, without using any of the above. Make up will do the job just fine, as will other methods. There is as much of security threat from people using make up to disguise themselves, as there is with those other methods. So using that logic make up should be banned.

Huge difference between wearing a pair of glasses and a cap and wearing a burka/balaclava.

Also, you might want to back up your fraudulent claims. It is a speculation, assumption and nothing more.

wes wrote: »

Should it not be about what the Woman wants?!?



So, we should emulate countries whom laws, you disagree with?

They can wear what they want, once they don't conceal their identity. Same goes for men.

Nodin wrote: »

Did they try to pressure the Government into wearing the Burka?

Nope, but they are in another country, and must respect the rules, even if they change while they are there. The law doesn't oppress people, it doesn't descriminate, however people will state otherwise, to suit their own agenda.

You might also want to look at Abu Gagha...

Einhard wrote: »

It might be interesting to have a look at the threads on the banning of new minarets in Switzerland. I'd be willing to wager that a proportion of those voiciferous in their support of this law were equally so in supporting the Swiss decision...

And? Your point being? Or do you have a point?

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

What is non-sensical?

Unending bigotry against muslims. We've even had people try to say that the ban on minarets didn't target muslims.

dvpower

Einhard wrote: »

It might be interesting to have a look at the threads on the banning of new minarets in Switzerland. I'd be willing to wager that a proportion of those voiciferous in their support of this law were equally so in supporting the Swiss decision...

... and a lot of the same people who supported that woman who wasn't allowed to wear her cross in work or that B&B owner who didn't want to admit homosexuals. There seems to be a different set of concerns when it comes to muslims. A lot of anti muslim prejudice wrapped up in faux concern for 'oppressed' muslim women imo.

Einhard

prinz wrote: »

What is non-sensical?

The following:

i. That wearing a burqa is the equivalent of exposing your penis in a public place, in front of children etc, and therefore should be prohibited on grounds of indcency.

ii. That wearing a burqa is as great a threat to public safety as carrying a loaded gun or a samurai sword down your pants.

iii. That the burqa should be banned due to possible Vitamin D deficencies on the part of the wearer.

iv. That your opposition to the burqa is in any way based on empathy for Muslim women.

prinz

Einhard wrote: »

I didn't defend the laws against public indecency. I stated the rationale behind them. Are you seriously sueggesting that covering one's face with a piece of cloth is indecent? Really?

...and the rationale behind banning burkas couldn't possibly be anything other than prejudice?

Nodin

Angie Moldy Police wrote: »

Nope, but they are in another country, and must respect the rules,

So what was this all about then?

I for one support this action, fcuk them if they think they can go to another country and pressure the government into changing their ways.

Angie Moldy Police wrote: »

The law doesn't oppress people, it doesn't descriminate, however people will state otherwise, to suit their own agenda.

Hmmmmmm. So what other groups will be affected by it then....?

Angie Moldy Police wrote: »

You might also want to look at Abu Gagha... .

Well, if it turned up on google, I might. You'll have to explain who what and why in the interim, however.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

Unending bigotry against muslims. We've even had people try to say that the ban on minarets didn't target muslims.

Please provide one statement I have ever made which is bigoted against Muslims?

Einhard wrote: »

The following:
i. That wearing a burqa is the equivalent of exposing your penis in a public place, in front of children etc, and therefore should be prohibited on grounds of indcency.

Er, no I never claimed it should be banned on grounds of indecency.

Einhard wrote: »

ii. That wearing a burqa is as great a threat to public safety as carrying a loaded gun or a samurai sword down your pants.

Nope, never claimed that either.

Einhard wrote: »

iii. That the burqa should be banned due to possible Vitamin D deficencies on the part of the wearer.

That wasn't me. Never said that.

Einhard wrote: »

iv. That your opposition to the burqa is in any way based on empathy for Muslim women.

Never said that either, congratulations, four examples, none of which stand up to inspection.

Einhard

Angie Moldy Police wrote: »

Wow this topic has gone to the dogs...

The idea of personal autonomy has gone to the dogs.

The sexist card fails, epicly in this thread.

You think this law is there to protect womens rights? lol.

I think it's sexist to presume to tell anyone woman that she cannot make her own mind up about what to wear.

And you may lol all you want, but the most cited argument for such a ban is that it infringes on the rights of women. I'm addressing that argument, you seem unaware of it.

And? Your point being? Or do you have a point?

I've addressed this already. I'm not going to repeat myself because you refuse to read the posts you comment upon.

Einhard

dvpower wrote: »

... and a lot of the same people who supported that woman who wasn't allowed to wear her cross in work or that B&B owner who didn't want to admit homosexuals. There seems to be a different set of concerns when it comes to muslims. A lot of anti muslim prejudice wrapped up in faux concern for 'oppressed' muslim women imo.

Well played sir! At least back in the day bigots were proud of their prejudices! Now they hide behind all sorts of nonsense, concern for the women, think of the children etc...

*Note, I'm not saying everyone who supports a ban is automatically a bigot.

Einhard

prinz wrote: »

...and the rationale behind banning burkas couldn't possibly be anything other than prejudice?

Of course it could. But I'm arguing the points that YOU raised regarding public nudism and indecency.

prinz

Einhard wrote: »

I think it's sexist to presume to tell anyone woman that she cannot make her own mind up about what to wear..

Are the laws against walking round town naked sexist?

dvpower

Angie Moldy Police wrote: »

This debate did not occure because Belgians were uncomfortable. You should not be permitted to hide your identity in a public place, regardless of what religion, race, sex you are.

The ban is supposedly about security, but, according to the BBC:

Only around 30 women wear this kind of veil in Belgium, out of a Muslim population of around half a million.

It just doesn't add up.

The problem with this is that it isn't at all clear why the legislation is being introduced. On security grounds? To protect muslim women? To prevent the spread of Islam? To send a message to muslims? The least they (and some posters here) can do is be up front about it.

prinz

Einhard wrote: »

Well player sir! At least back in the day bigots were proud of their prejudices! Now they hide behind all sorts of nonsense, concern for the women, think of the children etc...

*Note, I'm not saying everyone who supports a ban is automatically a bigot.

Well who are you talking about then? If not anyone on this thread then your post is irrelevant. Either be proud of your assertion or drop it and stop hiding behind nonsense and weasel words.

Einhard

prinz wrote: »

Please provide one statement I have ever made which is bigoted against Muslims?



Er, no I never claimed it should be banned on grounds of indecency.



Nope, never claimed that either.



That wasn't me. Never said that.



Never said that either, congratulations, four examples, none of which stand up to inspection.

i. You made an equivalence between the burqa and public nudism by stating that the one is banned, and therefore we should have no qualms about banning the other. I pointed out that the state acted in the former to protect public decency, whereupon you replied that public decency is decided by the people.

ii. You stated that the burqa should be banned because you can't carry around a samurai sword or a gun in your pants. Incidentally, what is it with you and shoving large objects in your pants? Compensating for something?

iii. No you didn't, but I moved on to expose the absurdity of some of the other arguments.

iv. See above.

Incidentally, what exactly is your position on the burqa, since none of the above applies to you? Why do you support it's banning in public?

T-Square

weiland79 wrote: »

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100430/twl-belgium-decides-to-ban-the-burqa-3fd0ae9.html

Hmmm not to sure about this one. As is said in the article it could be the start of a slippery slope on infringing peoples basic rights. No more hoodies, baseball caps or headgear in any shape or form.
Do the European courts not withhold the right to reverse this decision?

Its a political move, not a human rights infringement

Einhard

prinz wrote: »

Are the laws against walking round town naked sexist?

What on earth are you talking about?? Do you have a computer programme that assembles random points together and automatically posts responses for you? Because none of your replies bear witness to anything that I've actually said. Seriously, you should change your tag to non-sequitur.

Public nudism is outlawed for men and women. In this instance though, we are telling women that they cannot make up their own minds about the contents of their wardrobe, and thus the state must make the decision for them. That's sexist.

prinz

Einhard wrote: »

i.You made an equivalence between the burqa and public nudism by stating that the one is banned, and therefore we should have no qualms about banning the other. I pointed out that the state acted in the former to protect public decency, whereupon you replied that public decency is decided by the people.

I never made an equivalence. If you can show me where I did please do so. What I did do was raise another point to illustrate my position.

Einhard wrote: »

ii. You stated that the burqa should be banned because you can't carry around a samurai sword or a gun in your pants.

Nope. I never 'stated' that.

Einhard wrote: »

Incidentally, what is it with you and shoving large objects in your pants? Compensating for something?

O miaow. :rolleyes:.

Einhard wrote: »

iii. No you didn't, but I moved on to expose the absurdity of some of the other arguments.

I asked you for examples of what I had said that was so non-sensical.

Einhard wrote: »

iv. See above.

See above.

Einhard wrote: »

Incidentally, what exactly is your position on the burqa, since none of the above applies to you? Why do you support it's banning in public?

I am against anyone covering their face/identity in public and having to deal with that person in any capacity. Want to wear a burka in your own home, go ahead. Want to take a full part of Belgian society, leave it at home.

Einhard

T-Square wrote: »

Its a political move, not a human rights infringement

They're not mutually exclusive.

prinz

Einhard wrote: »

Public nudism is outlawed for men and women. In this instance though, we are telling women that they cannot make up their own minds about the contents of their wardrobe, and thus the state must make the decision for them. That's sexist.

I don't think the law specifies men or women tbh.

Einhard

Ok to prinz, and those others who are for the ban, could you please address the following post that I made earlier:

Ok, it really comes down this to me. Personal choices should only be interfered with by the state when that choice infringes on the safety and/or legal rights of others. Thus I can live with the ban on smoking in public places as it harms the health of non-smokers. I cannot see however, how the wearing of a face veil impinges on my rights, my wellbuing, or my safety. So why should it be legislated against? As I said before, were burqa clad crime on the rise in this country I could see some merit in the proposal, but it's not.

Seriously, if you have faith in your convictions then you should be able to respond to this honestly, without non-sequiturs, talk of things in your pants etc.

prinz

Einhard wrote: »

Seriously, if you have faith in your convictions then you should be able to respond to this honestly, without non-sequiturs, talk of things in your pants etc.

Have already responded to this. It's not my fault if you can't follow a logical train of thought.

dvpower

prinz wrote: »

Well who are you talking about then? If not anyone on this thread then your post is irrelevant. Either be proud of your assertion or drop it and stop hiding behind nonsense and weasel words.

I think that this post earlier in the thread displays bigotry:

Angie Moldy Police wrote: »

There was a party in Belgium that wanted to implement rules that all women should wear the burka. They have a large number of people from the likes of Morocco so that has a large influence. Now they went to Belgium for work, but if you go looking for work in another country, don't be a cnut about it, respect their rules and don't try change them to suit your poxy ways.

I for one support this action, fcuk them if they think they can go to another country and pressure the government into changing their ways. If you don't like it, fcuk back to where you came from.