Remember the minarets?

prinz

irishconvert wrote: »

No I won't retract it. I believe you are Islamophobic because you are against Muslim women covering their face but not other members of society.

bonkey wrote: »

One warning...don't personalise the argument

Irishconvert please provide one example of where I said a ban should apply to Muslims only and noone else. I have repeatedly and expressly stated the exact opposite.

Laminations

bonkey wrote: »

One warning...don't personalise the argument

Well unless you actually address the point showing empical research backing your OPINION that face covering doesnt harm anyone then you are practicing bigotry too. And its rich pulling me up for personalising things after a number of posters have implied I'm an islamophobe and a xenophobe.

irishconvert

Laminations wrote: »

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23370738-non-muslim-students-at-islamic-school-forced-to-wear-headscarves.do

Nice diversion but nothing to do with what we are discussing which is The Corinthian's claim of what happened to his sister.

irishconvert

prinz wrote: »

Irishconvert please provide one example of where I said a ban should apply to Muslims only and noone else. I have repeatedly and expressly stated the exact opposite.

I haven't time to read your million posts so please be kind enough to summarise. Are you against all members of society covering their face in a public place for any reason whatsoever? If there are exceptions then list them.

Laminations

irishconvert wrote: »

Nice diversion but nothing to do with what we are discussing which is The Corinthian's claim of what happened to his sister.

irishconvert wrote: »

I find that very difficult to believe. What part of London did she live in? Why on earth would Muslims jeer a non Muslim for not wearing a veil? I think that either you or your sister are lying.

It appears in certain circumstances muslims want non-muslims to comply with their dress code. Its not a diversion it was addressing your issue with believing this can happen

Laminations

irishconvert wrote: »

I haven't time to read your million posts so please be kind enough to summarise. Are you against all members of society covering their face in a public place for any reason whatsoever? If there are exceptions then list them.

No covering ones face in any area where smoking is not permitted - Or at least you may be asked to remove the covering

wes

Laminations wrote: »

It appears in certain circumstances muslims want non-muslims to comply with their dress code. Its not a diversion it was addressing your issue with believing this can happen

Schools enforcing a Uniform dress code, is hardly anything new. Personally, I don't think they should enforce the head scarf on kids who don't want to wear it, but its hardly something out of the ordinary for schools. Take for example France, where all conspicous Religous items are banned, due to the secular ethos on which the government runs there schools. I fail to see much of a difference between the 2.

irishconvert

wes wrote: »

Schools enforcing a Uniform dress code, is hardly anything new. Personally, I don't think they should enforce the head scarf on kids who don't want to wear it, but its hardly something out of the ordinary for schools.

Why not? My catholic school made the girls wear skirts below knee and allowed no makeup. Some girls didn't like it but that was the rules. If someone wants to run a private school they can enfoce whatever dresscode they like.

Laminations

wes wrote: »

Schools enforcing a Uniform dress code, is hardly anything new. Personally, I don't think they should enforce the head scarf on kids who don't want to wear it, but its hardly something out of the ordinary for schools.

I agree. And I fully accept that schools should have the right to decide dress code

prinz

irishconvert wrote: »

I haven't time to read your million posts so please be kind enough to summarise. Are you against all members of society covering their face in a public place for any reason whatsoever? If there are exceptions then list them.

Any law against covering one's face without justifiable or reasonable explanation should be applicable to everyone as per the proposed Belgian law.

If the proposed Swiss referendum is applicable to only burkas, and there is not legislation already covering the area of covering your face for no good reason then I would be against that.

The problem is even the Belgian legislation is accused of singling out burka wearers etc. Nonsense.

Now if you could be so kind as to highlight the Islamophobia in that position..

Laminations

irishconvert wrote: »

Why not? My catholic school made the girls wear skirts below knee and allowed no makeup. Some girls didn't like it but that was the rules. If someone wants to run a private school they can enfoce whatever dresscode they like.

Up to a point. They could not enforce a bikinis only dress code, nor should they be allowed impose a veilled face dress code if a law was in place that restricted covering ones face in such areas. In the same vein a school cannot flout the smoking ban and allow teachers smoke in canteens

irishconvert

Laminations wrote: »

It appears in certain circumstances muslims want non-muslims to comply with their dress code. Its not a diversion it was addressing your issue with believing this can happen

You are taking about a PRIVATE Muslim school. They can enforce whatever dress code they like. If they want girls to wear head scarf then that's the rules. If a girl doesn't want to wear a head scarf she can go to a different school.

irishconvert

Laminations wrote: »

Up to a point. They could not enforce a bikinis only dress code, nor should they be allowed impose a veilled face dress code if a law was in place that restricted covering ones face in such areas. In the same vein a school cannot flout the smoking ban and allow teachers smoke in canteens

You are just rambling now. What exactly is your point?

wes

irishconvert wrote: »

Why not? My catholic school made the girls wear skirts below knee and allowed no makeup. Some girls didn't like it but that was the rules. If someone wants to run a private school they can enfoce whatever dresscode they like.

I think a little bit of reasonable accomadtion in some cases is a good idea. The school has the right to make up a Uniform, in much the same way as another school can say a head scarf is not part of a Uniform. Personally, I think allowing a bit of accomadation in both instances is a good idea e.g. In the Muslims school, allow those who don't want to wear the head scarf to not have to do so, and vice versa in the other example.

irishconvert

prinz wrote: »

Any law against covering one's face without justifiable or reasonable explanation should be applicable to everyone as per the proposed Belgian law.

If the proposed Swiss referendum is applicable to only burkas, and there is not legislation already covering the area of covering your face for no good reason then I would be against that.

The problem is even the Belgian legislation is accused of singling out burka wearers etc. Nonsense.

Now if you could be so kind as to highlight the Islamophobia in that position..

Oh, you are doing the whole avoiding answering questions again like in other threads.

What are the "justifiable or reasonable explanations" for covering the face?

irishconvert

wes wrote: »

I think a little bit of reasonable accomadtion in some cases is a good idea. The school has the right to make up a Uniform, in much the same way as another school can say a head scarf is not part of a Uniform. Personally, I think allowing a bit of accomadation in both instances is a good idea e.g. In the Muslims school, allow those who don't want to wear the head scarf to not have to do so, and vice versa in the other example.

Well we will agree to disagree. I think if it is a Muslim privately run school they have the right to expect students to wear the hijab which all Muslim women should be wearing.

Laminations

irishconvert wrote: »

You are just rambling now. What exactly is your point?

I suppose my main point is that you fail at every opportunity given to you to actually address anyhting put to you.

irishconvert

Laminations wrote: »

I suppose my main point is that you fail at every opportunity given to you to actually address anyhting put to you.

Ok whatever. Keep trying to divert from the discussion.

bonkey

Laminations wrote: »

So you can draw lines, you just disagree where the line should be draw. So please dont repeat the 'where do we draw the line' line.

It wasn't a line...it was a question. I was asked where I draw it, and I supplied an answer.

1. The existing law vs. reactionary law argument is toss. No face covering in public is an existing law in Italy but you still objected to it being enforced on a veiled muslim woman.

How many times are you guys going to misinterpret what I said? I said that given the few details I was presented of the case, I did not agree that a fine was the appropriate response based on teh information I was given.

The case presented to me was not that a woman was fined for covering her face when such is against the law.

And appealing to 'old' or existing laws is just as fallacious as appealing to tradition. Our legislation must move with the times, whether it be against new forms of criminality, internet issues or any practice that may not previously have existed in the country but is now appearing (the requirement being that the practice is harmful to the society or dangerous).

Its not fallacious at all. I agree fully that we should move with the times. Part of this whole discussion is my disagreement that in these times there is something wrong with people covering their face for reasons grounded in religious belief.

I'm sure caravans have been parked on the side of roads for donkeys years, it was recognised as a problem and prohibited to certain areas, similar to smoking example I gave above.

The key word in that example, and the example you gave about smoking is problem. People covering their face hasn't been recognised as a problem. Even if it had, the question still then has to be addressed in terms of the existing legal framework, which protects the right to legal expression. It is a dreadful precedent to just ride roughshod over existing laws....which is why I would like the problem that arises from people covering their faces for reasons rooted in religion clearly identified.

Mostly, what we get instead is people saying they don't like it, people saying that it might, conceivably, maybe lead to situations which are problematic (but always where other, compromise-based options would also solve), or whatever. I have yet to see one honest-to-goodness problem that has been identified that needs to be solved and that can only be solved by a ban on covering one's face.

2. This last point 'harmful to society' is where we differ but you refuse to engage in debating that issue.

Where have I refused?

I have cited reams of research (in a previous thread) that has shown the importance of faces for face-to-face interaction, you simply say you dont find it a problem - its not about personal preference, I dont care whether you find something a problem or not, its about whether you can justify a practice is not going to harm society and/or integration.

So let me see if I understand this. You've presented information, I've responded to it, you've told me that you don't care about my position....and now you say that I've refused to engage in debating the issue? How, exactly, does that work? Do I engage in the issue only once I agree with you?

I note, however, your insistence and emphasis that its not about personal preference. You agree, then, that your dislike of people covering faces is not relevant?

To deal with the question of justifying a practice which harms society and/or integration, my position is that its a question of finding a compromise which is least harmful to all involved. Creating reactive laws to stamp out a religiously-rooted practice amongst a small number of immigrants, with the potential of alienating a far larger number is not my idea of a move that either benefits society nor which encourages integration. It shows immigrants that we don't care about them....that they need to conform or get out. It also shows that, as a society, we don't really care about minorities, about religious expression that we disagree with, nor about honouring laws we already have put in place to protect same.

A restriction on face covering would not jeopardise halloween or carnival or (if one exists) a muslim festival where everyone dances round in burqas - it would mean that you couldn't go into public buildings while keeping your face covered - it would/should have similar impact as the smoking ban mentioned. IF it is the case that it only applies to burqas or niqabs specifically in the legislation then it is discriminatory.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you don't have a problem with them walking about in public....only once they enter public buildings?

4. Justifiable cause is already used extensively in law. It would be the reason gardai dont arrest people coming from a kitchen knife sale or a carpenters convention for concealment of a weapon (knife, screwdriver) but they would have issue with someone in a nightclub carrying same. Its about appropriate behaviour in appropriate places, and any inappropriateness should rouse suspicion (e.g. that woman in hat scarf and glasses walking into No Name on a belter of a sunny day - they should be asked to reveal their face, similar to how they can be asked to not smoke in the store/bank/office/taxi.

And this is relevant if and only if you assert that someone wearing a burqa in public is per force suspicious....or, if you're limiting to public buildings...that someone entering a public building wearing a burqa is per force suspicious. In effect, it is relevant only on the basis that the wearing of the burqa is, in and of itself, suspicious.

4. The interpretation of islam doesn't matter. Justifying a behaviour solely on religious grounds is not justification enough. So whether face covering for women is or is not a requirement of the religion does not matter.

A behaviour that is not illegal shouldn't need any justification in the first place. Rather, the justification should be necessary for aaking it illegal.

It isn't about religion for me so what keeps dragging me back is the accusations of islamophobia and xenophobia. The typical mudslinging you get when you try to debate any sensitive issue like this or immigration or abortion etc.

prinz

irishconvert wrote: »

Oh, you are doing the whole avoiding answering questions again like in other threads.

So, point out where I have exhibited Islamaphobia.

bonkey

Putting my moderator hat back on for a second...

Any continuation of personalised accusations from anyone on this thread will result in a ban.

prinz

bonkey wrote: »

The case presented to me was not that a woman was fined for covering her face when such is against the law..

That's exactly the case that was presented

Laminations

bonkey wrote: »

How many times are you guys going to misinterpret what I said? I said that given the few details I was presented of the case, I did not agree that a fine was the appropriate response based on teh information I was given.

The case presented to me was not that a woman was fined for covering her face when such is against the law.

Ok so now you have more details. The law existed. It was against face covering in public buildings. She had her face covered in a post office. Was a fine an appropriate response? If not why not and what is?

bonkey wrote: »

The key word in that example, and the example you gave about smoking is problem. People covering their face hasn't been recognised as a problem. Even if it had, the question still then has to be addressed in terms of the existing legal framework, which protects the right to legal expression. It is a dreadful precedent to just ride roughshod over existing laws....which is why I would like the problem that arises from people covering their faces for reasons rooted in religion clearly identified.

I've provided evidence of the importance of facial expression for social and emotional development, for trust, for understanding. If covering ones face during interactions damages those things then it is a problem, you have yet to refute the facts that face covering does damage those things, things I can easily argue are important for multicultural integration.

bonkey wrote: »

So let me see if I understand this. You've presented information, I've responded to it, you've told me that you don't care about my position....

only because you responded to it with mere opinion

bonkey wrote: »

and now you say that I've refused to engage in debating the issue? How, exactly, does that work? Do I engage in the issue only once I agree with you?

I note, however, your insistence and emphasis that its not about personal preference. You agree, then, that your dislike of people covering faces is not relevant?

I dont have a dislike of people. I have a dislike of the practice (whether it be balaclavas, helmets or burqas), the same way someone may have a dislike of smoking, it doesn't take from their argument that unrestricted smoking can be dangerous.

bonkey wrote: »

To deal with the question of justifying a practice which harms society and/or integration, my position is that its a question of finding a compromise which is least harmful to all involved. Creating reactive laws to stamp out a religiously-rooted practice amongst a small number of immigrants, with the potential of alienating a far larger number is not my idea of a move that either benefits society nor which encourages integration. It shows immigrants that we don't care about them....

really? one expression of their religion carried out by, as you say a small number, shows all immigrants we dont care???

bonkey wrote: »

that they need to conform or get out

Dick would have to conform just because he didnt get here before the laws of decency were enacted - Smokey Joe who arrived prior to the 2005 smoking ban could still puff away in the pub in the name of religion tho?.

bonkey wrote: »

If I'm understanding you correctly, you don't have a problem with them walking about in public....only once they enter public buildings?

Here you are in a confined space with others, you are interacting whether you want to or not.

bonkey wrote: »

And this is relevant if and only if you assert that someone wearing a burqa in public is per force suspicious....or, if you're limiting to public buildings...that someone entering a public building wearing a burqa is per force suspicious. In effect, it is relevant only on the basis that the wearing of the burqa is, in and of itself, suspicious.

A piece on the importance of facial expression for trust wrote:

It appears that for evolutionary purposes, it was important to be able to make relatively rapid judgments of whom could be trusted. It seems weird that over millennia, genes wouldn’t have had a hereditary advantage that came up with better heuristics for assessing trust than this one commonly used (if it had no relationship with honesty). Then again, it may be that facial expressions in concert with other signals from the speaker (tone, style, affect, excitement, sweat, etc.) were actually relatively good proxies for truth-telling. For sure those who weren’t very good at judging who was going to stab them in the back, generally didn’t live long enough to be able to pass on their genes.

So if the face courts trust, face covering courts distrust or suspicion? Do you want to provide evidence to the contrary or merely your opinion again?
Do you have evidence to show face covering courts trust? Maybe the way soldiers remove their helmets to gain the trust of locals.... oh wait that supports my point about openness and trust

maybe the way scouts shake with left hands to symbolise the lowering of a shield?.... oh wait, supports my point again.

Laminations

Or from the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust Dress Code for Uniformed Staff (I'd imagine these professionals dress in a manner that courts trust, no??) And I haven't misinterpreted the NHS Trust with Trust Dress Code

Head coverings required to be worn due to religious beliefs such as a Turban (Sikh men), Kippah (Jewish men) and Hejab headscarf (Muslim women) should be in a plain green colour, as near to LAS corporate green as possible. Headscarves should be securely fastened with no trailing ends and should not cover the face.

Isn't it amazing the way they can draw the line??

Spectacles, sunglasses and contact lenses must be compatible with the image of a professional uniformed service and can be worn when appropriate. It is important however, that staff completely remove sunglasses from the head when dealing directly with patients as they can present an authoritative or aggressive image and act as a barrier to eye contact and thus inhibit effective communication.

irishconvert

Laminations wrote: »

Or from the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust Dress Code for Uniformed Staff (I'd imagine these professionals dress in a manner that courts trust, no??) And I haven't misinterpreted the NHS Trust with Trust Dress Code

Head coverings required to be worn due to religious beliefs such as a Turban (Sikh men), Kippah (Jewish men) and Hejab headscarf (Muslim women) should be in a plain green colour, as near to LAS corporate green as possible. Headscarves should be securely fastened with no trailing ends and should not cover the face.

Isn't it amazing the way they can draw the line??

Spectacles, sunglasses and contact lenses must be compatible with the image of a professional uniformed service and can be worn when appropriate. It is important however, that staff completely remove sunglasses from the head when dealing directly with patients as they can present an authoritative or aggressive image and act as a barrier to eye contact and thus inhibit effective communication.

The difference is the government has no right to tell people what they can/cannot wear in a public place. You don't have to work for the NHS if you don't like the dress code.

bonkey

Laminations wrote: »

Ok so now you have more details. The law existed. It was against face covering in public buildings. She had her face covered in a post office. Was a fine an appropriate response? If not why not and what is?

A better response would be to have made her leave, or to have denied her access in teh first place (if that was situationally possible). In the absence of those options, and assuming that the law is classified in a manner that makes a fine a typical result, then yes....the fine was an appropriate response.

I've provided evidence of the importance of facial expression for social and emotional development, for trust, for understanding. If covering ones face during interactions damages those things then it is a problem, you have yet to refute the facts that face covering does damage those things, things I can easily argue are important for multicultural integration.

I've quickly scanned back through the previous thread, and the evidence you mention, I think, are two books that you link to.

I don't deny that facial expression is important. I don't think I've ever tried. I pointed out earlier, there are less then 100 people estimated to be in Switzerland wearing a burqa. I'm not sure that you can easily argue how it is so important to integration to force these 100 people to either do something they object to, be treated as criminals, or to leave the country. I am, however, pretty sure that actions to coerce such a small number will be seen negatively by a far larger number....who are the immigrants that you want to encourage integration with.

If we remove this barrier to trust from 100 people, and replace it with resentment and mistrust in, say 1,000....how, exactly, is it easy to argue that society has gained, or that integration has been encouraged?

really? one expression of their religion carried out by, as you say a small number, shows all immigrants we dont care???

I didn't say all immigrants, but in case my wording wasn't clear... no....clearly it doesn't show all immigrants we don't care. I'm sure some immigrants would support the move too.

Now...in return...do you think the number of people who see the move in a negative light will be larger or smaller then the number of people who would be directly effected in their choice of clothing by the legislation?

Dick would have to conform just because he didnt get here before the laws of decency were enacted - Smokey Joe who arrived prior to the 2005 smoking ban could still puff away in the pub in the name of religion tho?.

Nope...even in that case, the law wasn't enacted as a reaction (in part or in whole) to Smokey Joe. Can you honestly tell me that you think a ban on face covering wouldn't be significantly a reaction to some Muslim women and their clothing?

For the record...I would support allowing Smokey Joe to have somewhere that he and his fellow believers could smoke together. After all...his religion wasn't founded in reaction to the laws, so I see no reason not to find some degree of compromise. (I should point out, incidentally, that people in Switzerland register their religious affiliation, so ensuring that the people who joined Smokey Joe for a puff were actually of his faith would be possible).

So if the face courts trust, face covering courts distrust or suspicion? Do you want to provide evidence to the contrary or merely your opinion again?

The assertion in the quote you've provided is that being able to see someone's face is an important tool in forming rapid assessments of who could be trusted (and who not). Clearly, it did this by allowing someone to rapidly form an assessment one way or the other. Thus, it is not that the face courts trust, but rather that the face allows rapid assessment, leading to trust or mistrust.

The converse of this is not necessarily that face covering courts distrust or suspicion, but rather that it prevents rapid assessment. What the outcome of a lack of rapid assessment is...is far from clear. I would argue that in modern society, we are becoming increasinly used to initiating and sustaining contact without face-to-face exposure, which would reduce the notion that face-covering per se would lead to immediate suspicion. Indeed, I would point out that you yourself stressed that you found nothing suspicious in the wearing of the burqa.

On one hand, I'm still only offering you opinion. On the other hand, that opinion is based on your argument not being entirely based on the evidence you've provided, but rather on some assumptions you've made on top of that...assumptions I don't believe are necessarily valid, especially given your own insistence that you would be an exception to what it is you're suggesting.

Do you have evidence to show face covering courts trust? Maybe the way soldiers remove their helmets to gain the trust of locals.... oh wait that supports my point about openness and trust
...
maybe the way scouts shake with left hands to symbolise the lowering of a shield?.... oh wait, supports my point again.

There are many factors which promote openness and trust, just as there are things that promote distrust.

I'm struggling, however, to think of any that necessitated legislation. Because lets not confuse things here. THe issue is whether or not we should legislate, and you feel we should.

Unless you're suggesting, for example, that we legislate that people must shake hands, or must do so with their left hand....then no...it doesn't actually support your point at all. Rather, it undermines it by showing that this is not something that interests the law.

The moral fabric society isn't threatened by people who refuse to shake hands, or who do so with their right hand....nor by people who don't take off their hats or sunglasses when they talk to you....or if it is, it certainly isn't threatened enough to make anyone interested in legislation.

So it should be clear that such notions don't support the idea that we need to legislate to protect us against people who's actions may not promote forming of trust (or mistrust). Rather, they suggest that it is not the stuff of law at all.

prinz

irishconvert wrote: »

The difference is the government has no right to tell people what they can/cannot wear in a public place..

The government tells me I can't go naked.

irishconvert

prinz wrote: »

The government tells me I can't go naked.

It also tells you not to be drunk in public. It also tells barmen not to serve drunk people. Those laws are broken everyday.

Laminations

I did not mean to directly equate facial expression and hand shaking or other forms of politeness. The face is far more important

Current Biology wrote:

Central to all human interaction is the mutual understanding of emotions, achieved primarily by a set of biologically rooted social signals evolved for this purpose—facial expressions of emotion. Although facial expressions are widely considered to be the universal language of emotion [1,2,3], some negative facial expressions consistently elicit lower recognition levels among Eastern compared to Western groups (see URL="http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2809%2901477-8#bib4"]4[/URL for a meta-analysis and URL="http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2809%2901477-8#bib5"]5[/URL],[URL="http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2809%2901477-8#bib6"]6[/URL for review). Here, focusing on the decoding of facial expression signals, we merge behavioral and computational analyses with novel spatiotemporal analyses of eye movements, showing that Eastern observers use a culture-specific decoding strategy that is inadequate to reliably distinguish universal facial expressions of “fear” and “disgust.” Rather than distributing their fixations evenly across the face as Westerners do, Eastern observers persistently fixate the eye region. Using a model information sampler, we demonstrate that by persistently fixating the eyes, Eastern observers sample ambiguous information, thus causing significant confusion. Our results question the universality of human facial expressions of emotion, highlighting their true complexity, with critical consequences for cross-cultural communication and globalization.

Now obviously it has to be explored as to why different cultures focus on different parts of the face but in the West we use the whole face to garner information, so restricting this information in public (I still say) is a bad idea for social development.
We'll have to agree to disagree

You say with the numbers involved it is not a problem - so at what numbers does it become a problem for you?? I'm guessing you have no number.

Yes maybe its a proactive restriction to prevent some slippery slope type argument (I'm generally against slippery slope arguments, but then again I'm not calling for a ban) but I'm respecting the right of a country to decide what is acceptable in public and if a ban was to be introduced here (and again I'm not calling for it), I'd be against it....I'd be for a restriction so believers could still have many places to practice their belief that covering their faces makes god love them more.

Laminations

irishconvert wrote: »

It also tells you not to be drunk in public. It also tells barmen not to serve drunk people. Those laws are broken everyday.

So now your argument is that no new legislation should be initiated on anything because there is evidence that current legislation is being ignored or not enforced?