Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 27 of 372 (771171)
10-21-2015 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Porosity
10-21-2015 4:30 PM


porosity writes:
Wait.. what? ringo is a girl?
Isn't everybody on the intertubes?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Porosity, posted 10-21-2015 4:30 PM Porosity has not replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 202 of 372 (773687)
12-07-2015 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Phat
12-05-2015 4:03 PM


Re: Not in MY Courtroom!
Phat writes:
This was an interesting recent development.
Well I think that's just plain wrong. She was wearing a headscarf, not a face covering. Surely there are precedents for that in Canada?
The judge said that it was a religious symbol which are not allowed in court - the court being a secular institution with no religious symbols anywhere - then compared her scarf to a hat or sunglasses. Weird.
Do Canadians not offer their witness to swear oaths on their holy books or does everyone have to affirm?
That seems to me to be a denial of access to justice for nothing more than a clothing preference.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Phat, posted 12-05-2015 4:03 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Greatest I am, posted 12-07-2015 7:52 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 212 by AZPaul3, posted 12-08-2015 6:24 AM Tangle has not replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 276 of 372 (773973)
12-11-2015 3:25 PM


Is it really not possible to have a grown up discussion about this? Is it really necessary to caricature both sides of this argument and not accept that there really are oppressive reasons why women wear full face and body coverings and that there are also real issues of freedom at stake in banning them?
Without googling I know that there are at least two modern, western, liberal democracies that have banned these clothes for good reason and that appeals on human rights grounds in the European court have failed.
It is not necessarily racist to argue for a ban, but there is also real difficulty balancing this against personal freedom. Given the clmate and the known cultural oppression behind at least some of those that wear these things - as evidenced when it was made illegal to wear them - it seems to me that the balance is in favour of a ban. But I would not personally argue for it - the numbers affected by it in our countries is too small to matter.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by ringo, posted 12-12-2015 10:47 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 286 by Greatest I am, posted 12-12-2015 12:22 PM Tangle has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 280 of 372 (774014)
12-12-2015 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by ringo
12-12-2015 10:47 AM


It strikes me that the hijab is a rather lovely thing. It's supposed to protect the modesty of a female by hiding her hair, neck and ears. I can only say that they have been misled if they think it achieves that.
As I said earlier, it was quite wrong of the female judge in Canada to refuse hearing the woman wearing the head scarf. Banning it would be absurd.
But the burka, nikab and hijab can all be symbols of oppression and ways of subjugating women - we need to recognise that as a simple fact and stop pretending that it is only the woman's choice.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by ringo, posted 12-12-2015 10:47 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by ringo, posted 12-12-2015 11:12 AM Tangle has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 282 of 372 (774018)
12-12-2015 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by ringo
12-12-2015 11:12 AM


Ringo writes:
So we could have ended slavery by banning chains?
Absurd
Nobody is pretending any such thing.
Sure had me fooled.
The point is that if ANY women make the choice, we can not legitimately prevent them.
No, that's not the point. They have been banned legitimatey in at least two modern western democracies and those bans have been tested in the European Court of Human Rights.
If there is ANY non-oppressive use for chains, we can not legitimately ban them. And banning them wouldn't eliminate the oppression anyway.
Demonstrably wrong. In those countries where they have been banned it has been for several reasons....
The European judges decided otherwise, declaring that the preservation of a certain idea of "living together" was the "legitimate aim" of the French authorities......Aside from questions of security and equality, she added: "It's about social communication, the right to interact with someone by looking them in the face and about not disappearing under a piece of clothing." The French and Belgian laws were aimed at "helping everyone to integrate".

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by ringo, posted 12-12-2015 11:12 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by ringo, posted 12-12-2015 11:35 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 292 by AZPaul3, posted 12-12-2015 1:23 PM Tangle has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 284 of 372 (774022)
12-12-2015 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by ringo
12-12-2015 11:35 AM


Phat writes:
That does not legitimize a blanket ban.
Yes it does. As demonstrated.
You can't integrate people by making them uncomfortable.
Rather, you can't integrate people by allowing them isolate themselves - which is the purpose of these clothings. Those countries took the view that if Muslims they wish to live in them, they need to leave their extreme religious and cultural practices and integrate. The full body covering is a symbol of non-integration with the prevalent culture.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by ringo, posted 12-12-2015 11:35 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by ringo, posted 12-12-2015 12:16 PM Tangle has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 288 of 372 (774028)
12-12-2015 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by ringo
12-12-2015 12:16 PM


Ringo writes:
Don't confuse "legal" with "legitimate".
Are you claiming that laws found to be fair by the Court of Human Rights are not legitimate? If so you have a lot of work ahead of you.
There's nothing "extreme" about a hijab.
I've already given you my personal views of the hijab - I have no problem with it. With the caveat that it can be a used to oppress and subjugate women, albeit to a lessor extent than full body coverings.
I don't know if you're deliberately trying to bait and switch....
The topic covers the hijab - it's right there in the title - as well as "full body covering". If you can understand the difference, please make that clear. If you think extending a "full body covering" ban to headscarves is sensible, please make that clear too.
I am fully aware of the title, thank you. I have now said - twice - that I do not think that we should ban the hijab. I have also said that although I believe there are better arguments for banning full body covering (in public) I personally don't agree with banning it. The problem is small - in France estimated at less that 2,000 women - there are better ways of dealing with problems of that scale.
I have also said that there are problems with all three clothes because they all have the intent and practical application of hiding women from society. Where this is the case, I object to it - as I would with any religion or cultural practice that has that underlying intent.
Are you having difficulty dealing with nuanced arguments?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by ringo, posted 12-12-2015 12:16 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by ringo, posted 12-13-2015 1:12 PM Tangle has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 289 of 372 (774029)
12-12-2015 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Greatest I am
12-12-2015 12:22 PM


TGIA writes:
Well phrased my friend but to say, --- that the numbers affected by it in our countries is too small to matter, --- is like saying that just a bit of slavery in our country is too small to matter.
I didn't say it was too small to matter. My view is that there are better ways of dealing with issues that only affect a few people than creating laws against the practice that may do more harm than good.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Greatest I am, posted 12-12-2015 12:22 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Greatest I am, posted 12-12-2015 1:33 PM Tangle has not replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 298 of 372 (774043)
12-12-2015 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by AZPaul3
12-12-2015 1:23 PM


AZP writes:
And what was banned was the full face covering like the burka hiding ones identity, not the hijab.
Correct.
There is only one reason to ban the hijab ... religious bigotry.
Interesting.
For the third time, I am not in favour of a ban on the hijab. Is there something really difficult in what I have said that allows people to ignore those words?
Also for the thrid time, I'm not in favour of even a ban on full body covering.
Ok?
The only reason to ban any of them is pure unadulterated religious bigotry.
That's not correct. I've provided a couple of the arguments that France and Belgium have used successfully. They are not religious bigotry, they are legitimate reasons for the benefit of society as a whole and for the protection of their citizens as they see it.
You (and I) also have a legitimate argument, but it is not legitimate to claim that those who have different opinions to you (and me) are, by definition, religious bigots.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by AZPaul3, posted 12-12-2015 1:23 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by AZPaul3, posted 12-12-2015 3:20 PM Tangle has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 301 of 372 (774061)
12-12-2015 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by AZPaul3
12-12-2015 3:20 PM


Fair enough, thanks.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by AZPaul3, posted 12-12-2015 3:20 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 316 of 372 (774128)
12-13-2015 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by ringo
12-13-2015 1:12 PM


ringo writes:
I'm saying that laws imposing a dress code on Muslim women are not legitimate.
Then you're dead flat wrong. The highest court in Europe has declared that the law forbidding the wearing of full face covering in France and Belgium is legitimate. You can say that you don't agree with it, but can't say that it isn't legitimate.
have a problem with "nuanced" discrimination. When you say, "The full body covering is a symbol of non-integration with the prevalent culture," it sounds like an intent to shoehorn newcomers into "our" culture.
That's about right. Like I want to shoehorn the culture to prevent, the worst aspects of Sharia law, FGM and honour crime. These are extremes that have no place in what you rightly call 'our' culture, which now takes many forms - all of which have to get along together.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by ringo, posted 12-13-2015 1:12 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by ringo, posted 12-13-2015 2:58 PM Tangle has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 323 of 372 (774142)
12-13-2015 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by ringo
12-13-2015 2:58 PM


Ringo writes:
You're confusing legal with legitimate again.
There is no other test other than individual opinion - yours against the European Court of Human Rights. I agree with you - it's probably a mistake to ban the wearing of full face masks but I disagree that it's not legitimate to do so. For different reasons,
None of which have anything to do with the topic.
Only if you wish to artificially seperate one form of female oppression from another. It's all of a piece. But then you also argued for the acceptance of FGM so you're on the wrong side of the entire argument.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by ringo, posted 12-13-2015 2:58 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by ringo, posted 12-14-2015 10:58 AM Tangle has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 332 of 372 (774185)
12-14-2015 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by ringo
12-14-2015 10:58 AM


ringo writes:
Canadian courts have ruled that banning the niqab is not legitimate, so I'm not alone. Maybe Europe just needs to catch up.
I'd like to read that judgement - do you have a reference?
But the point remains, it was - by simple definition - legitimate to ban the Burka in France. You and even your government may disagree, but it would still be legitimate.
What we're talking about here is oppression of women by dictating what they wear: oppression BY government.
Nope - you are trying to twist the argument around to say that it is oppressive of the government to prevent people wearing full body and facial coverings. And of course it is the restriction of a freedom but it is done in order to benefit the community as a whole and to protect some women from worse oppression and subjugation. Governments do this all the time - try walking down the High Street naked. Do you feel oppressed? This guy does:
Stephen Gough - Wikipedia

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by ringo, posted 12-14-2015 10:58 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by ringo, posted 12-14-2015 11:28 AM Tangle has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 334 of 372 (774189)
12-14-2015 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by ringo
12-14-2015 11:28 AM


If veiling was really just a personal choice like wearing pink socks, there would be no problem. But we know that it is not, it's a requirement which under some forms of islam is enforced. From the New Humanist
Sharia law is still enforced in approximately 35 nations, where some form of veiling is compulsory. An estimated 83 Sharia courts operate in England today. Many Muslim families living in Western Europe use legal forms of coercion to make girls and women conform to veiling. The murder of Shafilea Ahmed, by her own parents, is a case study in how Europeans respond to these situations of family violence with an embarrassed silence, rather than the kind of outrage that would be seen as appropriate were its victims not exclusively female. The Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (Ikwro) found last year that 39 out of 52 police forces across the UK had recorded at least 2,823 honour attacks over 2010. Some forces showed a jump of nearly 50 per cent in such cases from 2009. This is the backdrop against which Muslims in Europe claim that wearing the burqa is a choice.
The claim that covering yourself up in public is an empowering choice insults the intelligence and dignity of women everywhere, just as the theological claim that the burqa is a necessary defence against predatory male sexuality insults Muslim men insofar as it treats them as fundamentally incapable of responsibility for their sexual behaviour.
The reason Western feminists (male or female) object to seeing women in burqas is not that we can’t tolerate diversity, but that the burqa is a symbol of patriarchal Islam’s intolerance of dissent and desire to contain and repress female sexuality.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by ringo, posted 12-14-2015 11:28 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by ringo, posted 12-14-2015 11:51 AM Tangle has not replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 335 of 372 (774191)
12-14-2015 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by ringo
12-14-2015 11:28 AM


ringo writes:
But it doesn't "benefit the community" any more than banning crosses or banning bindis or banning turbans would benefit the community. And it doesn't protect women from worse oppression and subjugation; it just drives them underground. Banning [arbitrary items of clothing] accomplishes no more than banning alcohol.
Once again, it benefits the community for the reasons that have been presented several times, just saying no it doesn't is not terribly convincing.
The clothing is not arbitrary nor is it equivalent to crosses or turbans. The burka has a particular purpose, it's not just a symbol, it's a means of male oppression and it is not a free choice.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by ringo, posted 12-14-2015 11:28 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by ringo, posted 12-14-2015 11:54 AM Tangle has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024