Widespread Support for Banning Full Islamic Veil in Western Europe

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Write legislation that specifically bans the public wearing of leashes, bondage masks, Burkas, and other articles/ornaments that signify dominance of one human over another in public places; with an escalating series of fines for multiple offenses.

Why didn't you include wedding rings in your list?

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
Write legislation that specifically bans the public wearing of leashes, bondage masks, Burkas, and other articles/ornaments that signify dominance of one human over another in public places; with an escalating series of fines for multiple offenses.

Why didn't you include wedding rings in your list?

I'll ask you a third time to address my point Ebrown, then give up. (Wedding rings in no way signify one human's domination over another.)

0 Replies

Bill,

If there is "coercion" then the coercion is the crime, not the clothing. If some women are being coerced to wear burkas, then you punishing the wrong people.

Punishing women for being coerced seems backwards at the very least.

Abuse is illegal. Punishing the behavior of the victims is not an effective way to combat abuse (and yes, it has been tried). The way to combat abuse is through a more open society, through being understanding of the victims (including their culture and religion), of taking abusive acts seriously and providing resources and education.

Let's provide more resources to abuse victims, rather then attacking them.

Banning clothing is counterproductive. It drives a wedge between a minority group and resource providers. It attacks the culture and religion of potential victims... and how do you live the with the fact that you are basically telling women what they can and can't wear? How is this not coercion?

If banning burkas ever happens in the US (and thanks to our Constitutional rights this is highly unlikely), I will be the first to support widespread civil disobedience....

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Coercion would also make a fine defense to the charge, should an offender choose to defend their illegal action. Tell me Ebrown, do you let your young children watch pornography? How about excessively violent programing? Or are there certain realities that you would prefer they not be introduced to until later in life?

1 Reply

I know a few women in Netherlands and UK who choose to wear headscarves and two of them the full covering of their own free will. One (headscarf) is a vicemayor of Amsterdam. All are very independent strong-minded women who choose this for religious reasons. How would you explain to them that what they do is proposed to become illegal? If I were in their position, I'd honestly find it quite insulting, especially if it is claimed to be done in my defense.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Women are not children. We make all kinds of rules for kids to protect them, we control what kids can see, what they can do and what they can wear.

We are talking about restricting what adult women can choose to wear.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Women are not children.

No one implied they were, Ebrown. And this habit of deliberately missing the point to say something snarky is getting tiresome.

ebrown p wrote:

We make all kinds of rules for kids to protect them, we control what kids can see, what they can do and what they can wear.

We are talking about restricting what adult women can choose to wear.

Among those rules is; we don't expose children to pornography... not because we don't think they'll ever be exposed to sex, but rather to teach them certain subjects in due time. We do not allow ADULT women and men to fornicate in public for the same reason. Neither should we allow open oppression of one gender in public. The fact that one half of certain religious groups are oppressed in this way is not something I'd want to explain to an inquisitive child; and neither would I wish to lie about it.

Freedom of Religion Not Equal

Freedom to Oppress. That a certain percentage of the already indoctrinated into a religion that openly treats women as second class citizens is more akin to Stockholm Syndrome than it is to a Freedom of Expression. Generation after generation of women have been oppressed in this way for centuries, whether they realize it or not. That Dag has friends that were taught/forced to behave in this subservient fashion for so long they now do so with pride is a damn shame.

Would anyone here care to offer a rational reason for why one gender should be forced to live under a different set of rules than another? Or why a government that strives for equality should turn the blind eye to such a blatant double-standard? I'd be curious if Dag or Ebrown or any other rational thinker wouldn't immediately confront the speaker of any specific reason a woman should be compelled to wear a burka. And before you run off about them not being forced; read the dictionary definition of coercion... and then give serious thought as to why a burka might be expected or even just encouraged for only one gender in the first place.

This is a case of institutionalized oppression against a single gender, plain and simple.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

It's not that simple.

0 Replies

@dagmaraka,

dagmaraka wrote:

I know a few women in Netherlands and UK who choose to wear headscarves and two of them the full covering of their own free will. One (headscarf) is a vicemayor of Amsterdam. All are very independent strong-minded women who choose this for religious reasons. How would you explain to them that what they do is proposed to become illegal? If I were in their position, I'd honestly find it quite insulting, especially if it is claimed to be done in my defense.

I would explain that what they choose to do of their own free will is simultaneously being forced on millions of others (as if they wouldn't realize this.) I would explain that although they may be not be offended by rules that are made and enforced by men, but apply only to women; the majority of our society opposes such double standards. I would ask them to understand that in a free society; freedom of religion stops short of freedom to treat one gender as beneath another, whether it be voluntary or not. Beyond that; I guess I’d have to apologize for a difference of opinion and feeling compelled to vote with my own conscience.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

freedom of religion stops short of freedom to treat one gender as beneath another, whether it be voluntary or not.

This is simply not true. Freedom of religion means freedom of religion. There are many religions: including Orthodox Judaism and several protestant Christian religions, that treat "one gender as beneath another" (although this is your term, not theirs).

Women have the right to be a part of any religion they choose (including these).

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
freedom of religion stops short of freedom to treat one gender as beneath another, whether it be voluntary or not.

This is simply not true. Freedom of religion means freedom of religion. There are many religions: including Orthodox Judaism and several protestant Christian religions, that treat "one gender as beneath another" (although this is your term, not theirs).

Women have the right to be a part of any religion they choose (including these).

This quibble is a disagreement over a potential law, and you deliberately severed off my qualifier about a "free society". This is a difference of opinion. You vote your way; I'll vote mine. In the mean time; how about addressing the actual thrust of my argument, rather than hiding behind generalized personal freedom arguments? Specifically, I would really appreciate a response to this paragraph.

Quote:

Would anyone here care to offer a rational reason for why one gender should be forced to live under a different set of rules than another? Or why a government that strives for equality should turn the blind eye to such a blatant double-standard? I'd be curious if Dag or Ebrown or any other rational thinker wouldn't immediately confront the speaker of any specific reason a woman should be compelled to wear a burka. And before you run off about them not being forced; read the dictionary definition of coercion... and then give serious thought as to why a burka might be expected or even just encouraged for only one gender in the first place.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Would anyone here care to offer a rational reason for why one gender should be forced to live under a different set of rules than another? Or why a government that strives for equality should turn the blind eye to such a blatant double-standard? I'd be curious if Dag or Ebrown or any other rational thinker wouldn't immediately confront the speaker of any specific reason a woman should be compelled to wear a burka. And before you run off about them not being forced; read the dictionary definition of coercion... and then give serious thought as to why a burka might be expected or even just encouraged for only one gender in the first place.

Sure,

Any law banning what I can or can not wear, particularly when this law concerns my ethnic/religious/cultural practices... is a very harsh imposition on my rights. Using the force of law to tell me what I can't wear is the definition of coercion.

I get your opposition. You point out that women have been forced to wear the burka. Fine... on this point we absolutely agree: no woman should be forced to wear a burka. But here are the disconnects (and I think there are two places we part ways in this issue).

1. If an adult is part of a religion, and the religion frowns upon something or mandates something... this is not coercion. This an adults choice to be a part of a religion, or to not be part of it.

Orthodox Jews don't pork. There is a very strong pressure to not eat pork which includes being ostracized from the community for rejecting religious tenets.

So are Jews "coerced" to not eat pork? Certainly not in any legal sense. This social pressure is a key part of the culture and the religion, if you make the proscription of eating port illegal, you make Orthodox Judaism illegal. The freedom that society offers Orthodox Jews have is freedom to practice the religion or to leave the religion. And there many other examples from many other subcultures and religions in our diverse country.

An adult woman who chooses to wear a burka is not being coerced. I am not saying that no women are coerced to wear a burka. I am simply pointing out that the women who have the option to wear a burka or not, and make this choice as adults, are not being coerced.

2. Taking away people's rights doesn't keep anyone from being coerced.

At base, you are forbidding women from doing something that at least some of them want to do. There is no way around it. By telling women they can't wear a type of clothing, you are taking away their freedom.

You might be making the argument that taking away the rights of the women who want to wear the burka is a way to protect other women from being coerced.... but I don't think so.

The way to protect women from being coerced is not to go after them legally.

1. Enforce laws against violence.
2. Provide services for victims of violence.
3. Engage minority groups with understanding an tolerance so that we can build bridges between communities and authorities.
4. Continue with education programs and outreach to communities to provide education and resources.

Telling women what they can't wear is not part of the solution.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Thank you for taking the time to respond in detail. Mostly, we're going to have to agree to disagree on which point is more compelling: Personal Freedom v. Using Personal Freedom as a shelter to continue gender oppression.

ebrown p wrote:

You might be making the argument that taking away the rights of the women who want to wear the burka is a way to protect other women from being coerced.... but I don't think so.

That is precisely the argument I am making. The idea that domestic violence laws protect women who disobey men who think they have the God-given right to punish them for disobeying is a farce. A noble goal, which should be strived for to be sure, but sadly inadequate in practice. I think you realize this. Services for victims of violence are available most everywhere in this country, but are sadly underutilized to horror-show proportions (and statistics).

Your number 3. stick out at me:

ebrown p wrote:

3. Engage minority groups with understanding an tolerance so that we can build bridges between communities and authorities.

I have precious litttle understanding or tolerance for any doctrine that creates a second class for women to live in, and I wish to build no bridges nor subject my daughters to same, in any way, and most certainly not in public... and would therefore vote my conscience if ever given the opportunity.

ebrown p wrote:

4. Continue with education programs and outreach to communities to provide education and resources.

Education is supposed to somehow trump deep-seated religious beliefs? Surely you jest.

ebrown p wrote:

Telling women what they can't wear is not part of the solution.

I couldn't agree less. Such a law would actually serve to absolve them of responsibility for dressing in a less oppressive way, and fines for same would almost certainly deter all but the most fanatical of their oppressors.

Make no mistake, Ebrown, the personal freedoms of these same women are precisely what my rationale aims to protect. I care not how they dress in their homes, mosques or any other religious service or private gathering. Our fundamental disagreement is merely which is more compelling: the individual rights of the already indoctrinated or the individual rights of those who would/may choose not to be pressured into compliance. I do not believe a "free society" should condone the public display of oppression of one gender over another, for religious or any other reasons. Given a chance to vote on it; I will campaign my ass off. You are of course free to disagree.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Bill, At least we agree on what we disagree on Wink

Let me restate #3 and #4 (which I think are quite important points of disagreement)

The problem with #3 is that it allows society (or government) to decide what cultural practices are acceptable, and which are not. The real problem is that you are not basing this on the law-- you are basing this on your subjective opinions.

This difference is important. Preventing a social group from doing something against the law -- as in you can't use violence toward your wife or children -- is fine in a free society. Targeting the practices of an ethnic minority is not only unjust, it is un-Constitutional.

But I must disagree with you most strongly on #4. It is a fact, backed up by data and the experiences of countless countries (including our own) that increased education levels-- particularly of women-- is the best way to stop repression and violence.

Quote:

Given a chance to vote on it; I will campaign my ass off. You are of course free to disagree.

Fortunately, you will not be given a chance to vote on it. If you were, you very well might win-- but that is why we have a Bill of Rights.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

I just thought of this question. Let's assume you were writing a law banning the burka. I am a white, non-Muslim, man. Would I be allowed to wear a burka?

None of the reasons for banning the burka wouldn apply to me.There is no evidence that white men have ever been coerced to wear the burka.
It certainly wouldn't be a symbol of repression for a man to wear it.

So could we just ban it for women (and let men wear it if we want to)?

1 Reply

Fighting a burka ban with a bucketful of euros

A French businessman is offering to pay the €150 fines imposed on women who do not comply with the French burka ban. The brave stance is a warning to governments that try to punish people into social conformity.

There’s a new opponent to a forthcoming ban on clothing that hides a person’s face, which passed France’s National Assembly by 335 to 1 this week. Businessman Rachid Nekkaz is offering to pay the €150 fines imposed on women who do not comply. It is a brave stance, and serves as a warning to governments that think they can punish people into social conformity.

Mr. Nekkaz accepts the bill’s ban on the full-length burka and face-covering niqab in publicly run buildings; it’s the prospect of forbidding it on public streets that riles him: “a violation of constitutional principles,” he calls it. Mr. Nekkaz and his wife have put up €200,000 for the project, and he hopes to raise €800,000 more.

The burka is abhorrent and can trap a woman in a virtual prison. Banning it everywhere, however, will do little to emancipate women, and could force more of them into seclusion.

Mr. Nekkaz’s approach is an intriguing 21st-century take on civil disobedience; in this case, he is encouraging people to flout the law with the promise that they won’t pay a price. Dissidents have found patrons before, but it is novel that an entire class of possible offenders, thanks to generous donors, may escape a law’s penalties. Mr. Nekkaz is essentially underwriting civil disobedience.

Some kinds of paternalism, such as seat-belt requirements, are justifiable, usually for the sake of public safety. But it is better for governments to work with groups whose behaviour it sees fit to modify. When a government legislates on a matter as personal as clothing (as in Quebec, where a bill to limit veiled people’s ability to receive public services has been tabled), those affected may well feel they are being treated unjustly.

Mr. Nekkaz may never get the chance to deliver on his promise. The law still needs to approval by the French Senate and the constitutional council.

But as governments in Canada grow increasingly attracted to paternalistic laws, backed up by fines, they may want to look in their rearview mirrors: A Rachid Nekkaz with a war chest may be lying in wait.

0 Replies

Quote:

Orthodox Jews don't pork

ObservantJews don't eat pork, whether Orthodox or not.

But who knows what goes on behind closed doors? We won't tell, if you won't.

"Kosher" pizza palors sell "kosher" pizza containing pork sausage. But anyone who truly obeys the dietary laws wouldn't go near this pizza place. But who know what they may do in their homes, with the shades drawn.

0 Replies

Quote:

Would anyone here care to offer a rational reason for why one gender should be forced to live under a different set of rules than another? ... I'd be curious if Dag or Ebrown or any other rational thinker wouldn't immediately confront the speaker of any specific reason a woman should be compelled to wear a burka.

The answer to the above comment was written by the Prophet Muhammad and is clearly expressed in the Qu'ran. Observant Muslims know, read and understand Quranic laws and abide by them.

According to the Prophet, only the infidel chooses to do otherwise.

1 Reply

@Miller,

And that is different then the law of Moses... how?

There isn't that much significant difference between Judaism and Islam.

0 Replies

US reiterates disappointment over French burqa ban

US officials on Wednesday reiterated Washington's disagreement with a measure approved by the lower house of France's National Assembly banning the use of face-covering Islamic veils in public.

"We do not think that you should legislate what people can wear or not wear associated with their religious beliefs," said State Department spokesman Philip Crowley.

"Here in the United States, we would take a different step to balance security and to respect religious freedom and the symbols that go along with religious freedom," he said.

The bill is not yet law, as it will now go to France's Senate in September.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy's determination to ban the hijab and the burka won enough political support to approve the measure, even though critics argue that it breaches French and European human rights legislation.

"I would only say that, as I understand it, this is a first step in what may be a lengthy legislative and perhaps legal process," said Crowley.

0 Replies

Widespread Support for Banning Full Islamic Veil in Western Europe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know