Widespread Support for Banning Full Islamic Veil in Western Europe

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

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)?

I already answered this question:
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. The articles themselves would be banned. Legally speaking; no race, gender, religion, etc. in particular would be targeted.

The law could be crafted in an end around the First Amendment restrictions with the dual rationale of: ending the public display of human dominance over another in public for the good of the children and the secondary purpose of easing the difficulty of identifying suspected criminals.

Frankly Ebrown, it would be far easier to sell it than it would be to defend. As weak as you may find my rationale; do you doubt that there is more of a legitimate public interest in banning these symbols of oppression(<--important to group them in a VERY negative way, for campaign purposes), than in mandating that I wear a helmet?

I would be less surprised than you if such a bill were voted into law, but I wouldn't be surprised if the S.C. struck it down, either (though probably not this S.C.) (Interestingly enough; at this juncture it is almost a fore drawn conclusion that I'll be voting Left again in the next election, precisely to keep the court from getting too far Right.)

2 Replies

@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

Woah there. Some humans like to be dominated. The Folsom Street fair here would be boring as hell under these laws.

I mean, sometimes boys are naughty and need to be punished...

http://libcom.org/files/images/library/Dominatrix%5B2%5D.jpg

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

And they too can knock themselves out, just not in everday public. A parade would almost certainly be protected as a form of protest, however, so you've nothing to worry about. Wink

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Frankly Ebrown, it would be far easier to sell it than it would be to defend. As weak as you may find my rationale; do you doubt that there is more of a legitimate public interest in banning these symbols of oppression(<--important to group them in a VERY negative way, for campaign purposes), than in mandating that I wear a helmet?

Actually, this is another point on which we disagree.

I strongly doubt that there is any significant benefit to banning the burka. I don't believe banning clothing has any positive effect of stopping oppression of women. There are plenty of things that we, as a society, can do, that do have a positive effect to stop oppression of women... and I strongly support doing these things.

The negative effects of going against our national values of freedom and equality by singling out a religion with prejudice are significant. And... the assumption that every woman who wears a burka is oppressed is prejudice. Muslims, even conservative Muslims, are a part of society and under our Constitution and the values we claim as Americans, they deserve equal protection under the law.

Your view that conservative Muslims oppress women is a prejudice. Under the law, each person in a just society must be judged not by their by religion, or by prejudice an fear, but by actions as an individual.

The fact is, wearing clothing is not a crime. If a crime takes place, it should prosecuted based on the specific facts of the case.

Banning "oppression" is a fine goal (as long as we have a well defined legal definition of "oppression").

What is a "symbol of oppression" is a matter of opinion. I believe the confederate battle flag is a symbol of oppression... I would never support a law banning it (as offensive as I feel it is). There is no way that a just free society that claims to have freedom of expression can ban symbols.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

I think you are over-confident in your assessment. Thongs have been banned in many places, for instance. I would assume the justification for same is that they offend community standards, and I've no doubt that exposing children to the sight of the female rear end was the driving force behind their institution. Is this unconstitutional as well?

I don't have time for comprehensive research, but a quick stop at wiki provided:

Quote:

In France, according to journalist Jane Kramer, veiling among school girls became increasingly common following the 9/11 Attack of 2001, due to coercion by "fathers and uncles and brothers and even their male classmates" of the school girls. "Girls who did not conform were excoriated, or chased, or beaten by fanatical young men meting out Islamic justice."[32] According to the American magazine The Weekly Standard, a survey conducted in France in May 2003 reportedly "found that 77% of girls wearing the hijab said they did so because of physical threats from Islamist groups."[33]

In India a 2001 "acid attack on four young Muslim women in Srinagar ... by an unknown militant outfit, [was followed by] swift compliance by women of all ages on the issue of wearing the chadar (head-dress) in public."[34][35][36]

In Basra Iraq, "more than 100 women who didn't adhere to strict Islamic dress code" were killed between the summer of 2007 and spring of 2008 by Islamist militias (primarily the Mahdi Army) who controlled the police there, according to the CBS news program 60 Minutes.[37]

Islamists in other countries have been accused of attacking or threatening to attack the faces of women in an effort to intimidate them from wearing of makeup or allegedly immodest dress

Do you really doubt a reasonable argument could be crafted to demonstrate a legitimate public interest in resisting the encroachment of a de facto state of Sharia Law (even if it only really applies to a small percentage of Muslim Americans, in practice) that is attempting to superimpose it's own principles over rights of American citizens? The article quoted in wiki found that 77% of girls wearing the hijab [in French schools] said they did so because of physical threats from Islamist groups. I neither know nor care if that 77% figure is acurate, as any significant percentage would be sufficient to demonstrate a pattern of oppression; and therefore provide a legitimate public interest in implementing laws to curtail same.

I believe, but don't have time to verify, that the burqa has been banned in schools in many European Countries already (and Syria?) for this same reason. Expanding this protection beyond schools is merely an expanse on an already successful strategy. Do you really doubt that less of France's school girl's are being " excoriated, or chased, or beaten by fanatical young men meting out Islamic justice" since the Burqa ban in schools went into effect?
I believe you should reconsider your bolded statement:

ebrown wrote:

I don't believe banning clothing has any positive effect of stopping oppression of women.

Less school girls " excoriated, or chased, or beaten by fanatical young men meting out Islamic justice" most certainly constitutes a "positive effect of stopping oppression of women."

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Confusing my position, you make claims of my position without actually reading them, it appears to me. I am not decided about the ban but I can understand the reasoning why it might be. The few who wear them and are actually vocal are in the minority and usually reverts, white and extreme. It worries me how many are forced to bare this terrible burden. You can observe the Arab walking in Mayfair, with his wife in fully covered clothing, is actually not in the same frame of thinking. He is usually in an Armani suit open necked shirt with no beard. A recommendation associated with this type of womens dress code is for the man to be suitable dressed with simple attire and sporting a beard. I think the Arab Muslim is more intent on his macho image and his power to control his wives. Strange these same Arab muslims , usually a prince from KSA can be seen cavorting with his white whore in london's west end , with no regard to his wives imposition. Maybe you have not been exposed to this double standards, this hypocritical male attitude. I can remember watching a group of young Egyptian youths going for a swim. The girls looked like they were wearing a one man tent to enter the water while the boys wore the skimpiest of speedose...Its imposition demanded not requested.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Do you really doubt a reasonable argument could be crafted to demonstrate a legitimate public interest in resisting the encroachment of a de facto state of Sharia Law (even if it only really applies to a small percentage of Muslim Americans, in practice) that is attempting to superimpose it's own principles over rights of American citizens? The article quoted in wiki found that 77% of girls wearing the hijab [in French schools] said they did so because of physical threats from Islamist groups. I neither know nor care if that 77% figure is acurate, as any significant percentage would be sufficient to demonstrate a pattern of oppression; and therefore provide a legitimate public interest in implementing laws to curtail same.

This is basic flaw in your argument, Bill.

The principle of freedom is very simple: adult women (or men for that matter) have the right to choose. That is what freedom means.

You are forbidding women to wear burkas. How is this different then people forbidding women to wear makeup (and don't tell me that no one has ever suggested that makeup isn't a symbol of the repression of women).

Society has lots of ways to oppose violence; education, providing resources, and enforcement against men (or women) who use violent, or otherwise illegal, force against women (or men).

But Bill, you are talking about taking away a woman's right to choose (and by your own statistics from conservative sources, there are somewhere around 23% of Muslim women who would make the choice to wear a burka).

Forbidding that women wear makeup because makeup is symbolic of the oppression of women is (according to your post) is part of what you call Sharia law. I find this ironic.

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

Just to make completely clear.

I am promoting the right to choose.

I do not support countries or people who want to force women to wear the burka any more then I support countries or people who want to prohibit them. Taking away a woman's right to choose is wrong in either case.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

What would you say about the binding of the feet by the Japanese..Would you say they have the right to bind their feet. You are ignoring the reasoning and the underlying oppression it represents. No amount of freedom will alter the mentality that forces women to wear these awful burqas. Black , heavy, claustrophobic and extremely hot in the summer. Your confusing the rights to wear them with the right of their men to make them.

1 Reply

@xris,

Foot binding is more similar to piercing, it does direct damage to the body. I think that adult women should be allowed to get piercing or foot binding if they choose (i.e. don't think that anyone should force women to do either).

The fact that these actions do direct and immediate damage to the body makes this issue a bit different to me... but it doesn't change my belief in the principle of freedom.

Adult women (or men) who want to get piercing or foot binding should be allowed to make this decision. People should have control over their own bodies (in spite of my own squeamishness).

Quote:

No amount of freedom will alter the mentality that forces women to wear these awful burqas.

I don't know what this means. Freedom (by definition) means that the women who want to wear burkas can wear them, and the women who don't want to wear burkas don't have to.

Quote:

Your confusing the rights to wear them with the right of their men to make them.

No I am not. The principle is freedom to choose for yourself. It is quite simple.

No one should be able to force a woman who doesn't want to wear a burka to wear one.

No one should be able to force a woman who does want to wear a burka to not wear one.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

I think you are avoiding the question they pose. You believe that allowing the few to choose outweighs the imposition the majority suffer. This theoretical word, freedom, has no sense in reality just like the American gun laws. Ignore the suffering, the pain as long as this ideal is maintained. I tried to give you a simpler example of feet binding..how many do you think actually wanted their feet bound? We make laws to protect, not to destroy the notion of freedom.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Just to make completely clear.

I am promoting the right to choose.

I do not support countries or people who want to force women to wear the burka any more then I support countries or people who want to prohibit them. Taking away a woman's right to choose is wrong in either case.

And this is where we'll have to agree to disagree. The right to choose is not more compelling than the right to choose not to.

This, France and a number of other countries have already demonstrated can be more effectively protected with bans against the oppressive burqa itself in certain public places.

By this same token; a man indoctrinated into perpetual slavery in the mid 19th century lost his right to choose to continue to be a slave. He could continue to pick the cotton, on private property, but was prohibited from wearing leg irons when traveling about. Now you can accuse me of wanting to superimpose my values over other cultures; and I will concede the obvious truth of the charge.

I am promoting the right to choose too. I'm just being more honest and realistic about it. Practice any religion you wish. Wear a burqa or nothing at all in your private life but in public the community's right to set certain standards supersedes the individual's right to choose. Don't believe me? Take off all your clothes and go for a walk.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

And this is where we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think I disagree with every single thing in your last post.

1. The right to choose not to is equally compelling as the right to choose (and often just a play on words... any issue can be framed in either way). Rights are rights. In fact, the word choice means that you have the freedom to select between two options. If you eliminate one of the options, there is no longer a choice.

2. France is not a good example of anything. France has a horrible history of human rights, particularly toward immigrant populations. There are people born in France who remain stateless (not citizens of any country). The lack of assimilation in France is despicable as is the existence of a large minority underclass consisting of people who were born in France and whose families have been in France for generations but are locked in poverty with no rights.

3. There has never been a law against wearing leg irons. To stop slavery, we gave people more rights. There is no example where we took away the rights of people to prevent them from being slaves.

4. You are not promoting the right to choose. Giving women a choice means that you give them at least two options (i.e. to wear a burka, or to not wear a burka).

You are saying that women should be prohibited from wearing a burka. Saying that prohibition equals choice is such an Orwellian mangling of the English language that I have trouble even responding to it seriously.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
And this is where we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think I disagree with every single thing in your last post.

1. The right to choose not to is equally compelling as the right to choose (and often just a play on words... any issue can be framed in either way). Rights are rights. In fact, the word choice means that you have the freedom to select between two options. If you eliminate one of the options, there is no longer a choice.

I didn't propose eliminating any options. I proposed regulating where you can exercise them. All women retain the right to wear burqas if they so choose, just not in everyday public settings. Result: No woman can reasonably be expected to face heinous oppression for not choosing to wear one in an everyday public setting. This serves the greater good.

ebrown p wrote:

2. France is not a good example of anything. France has a horrible history of human rights, particularly toward immigrant populations. There are people born in France who remain stateless (not citizens of any country). The lack of assimilation in France is despicable as is the existence of a large minority underclass consisting of people who were born in France and whose families have been in France for generations but are locked in poverty with no rights.

This is nothing more than a series of Red Herring. Neither France's track record of human rights nor the rest of what I would agree with you are shortcomings are relevant in assessing this particular policy and the positive results of same (in France and elsewhere.)

ebrown p wrote:

3. There has never been a law against wearing leg irons. To stop slavery, we gave people more rights. There is no example where we took away the rights of people to prevent them from being slaves.

Really? So mutually agreed upon contractual indentured servitude is still permissible?

ebrown p wrote:

4. You are not promoting the right to choose. Giving women a choice means that you give them at least two options (i.e. to wear a burka, or to not wear a burka).

They can wear it all day, every day, or not; just not in everyday public places. You can walk around carrying a burning cross, all day, every day, just not in everyday public places. You can walk around butt-naked all day, every day, just not in everyday public places. Regulation Not Equal

Prohibition. You could be wearing two sideguns right now, hanging low, while walking around masterbating over your priviledge, but not anywhere you choose.

ebrown p wrote:

You are saying that women should be prohibited from wearing a burka. Saying that prohibition equals choice is such an Orwellian mangling of the English language that I have trouble even responding to it seriously.

I said no such thing, and only a deliberate misreading of my posts would lead you to believe otherwise. Have you tried taking that nekid walk yet to determine whether or not community standards are enforceable when it comes to regulating PUBLIC places?

1 Reply

You guys are never going to let this go, are you?

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

The law preventing me from running around naked isn't for the purpose of keeping me from being oppressed. I am not allowed to run around naked because other people are offended by me being naked.

Before for continue to twist this into the same thing.... the best argument you can make is that the oppression of women is offensive, but burkas do not equal oppression. A burka is not proof (legal or otherwise) that the woman wearing the burka is being oppressed. There are women who wear burkas by their own choice (by your own admission or else you wouldn't be promoting laws to stop them).

Banning women from wearing a burka because some women in burkas are oppressed, is like banning me from eating a hamburger because some men are getting heart attacks.

Here is the danger: it is clear that some people are offended by Muslims. It is not only burkas... there are hate-filled screaming idiots opposing every mosque being built (including one right near me).

Banning women from wearing a burka because Muslims make you uncomfortable makes more sense. Of course there are both ethical and Constitutional problems with banning the dress of one ethnicity.

Banning me from running around naked does not prevent me from being oppressed. There is no pretext that my rights are being defended by keeping me clothed. This is for the sake of the people around me who don't want to see me naked.

In the same way, banning Muslim women from dressing like Muslims doesn't protect them from anything. This is not to protect their rights... it is for the sake of people around them who don't want to see Muslims.

Let's at least be honest here.

1 Reply

@Mame,

Mame wrote:

You guys are never going to let this go, are you?

I'm pretty sure I'll remain opposed to institutional oppression of women for as long as it persists or I breath my last breath, you?

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

I'm pretty sure I'll remain opposed to institutional oppression of women for as long as it persists or I breath my last breath, you?

Of course. On that, we can agree !

Now let's have a beer....

http://www.clevergirlgallery.com/images/Beers/Sam-Adams-Black-Lager.jpg

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

No black lager for me, thanks. Got any wine?

1 Reply

@Mame,

Sure Mame, white or red?

http://www.saidaonline.com/en/newsgfx/red_and_white_wine_qjpreviewth.jpg

0 Replies

Widespread Support for Banning Full Islamic Veil in Western Europe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know