|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
I've told you several times: I find it morally repugnant that you want to tell Muslim women what to wear. If they choose freely to wear the hijab, you want to prevent them from doing so.
What do you find lacking in my moral position? Greatest I am writes:
So why do you want to take away the woman's right to choose?
Is it not the first priority of as free person to insure that all his fellow citizens share in that freedom?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
You want to ban the hijab, don't you? That IS removing a woman's right to choose to wear a hijab.
I do not want to remove a woman's right to choose. Greatest I am writes:
Even if women were being forced to wear the hijab, taking away that one form of oppression would do NOTHING to improve the life of Muslim women.
I want to free slaves while you do nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Greatest I am writes:
"Likely" would not agree? You've been shown testimony from women who DO want to wear the hijab. There's no "likely" about it. They DO NOT agree with YOU. An oppressed woman would likely not agree. You're talking about some hypothetical women who are being "forced" by their husbands to wear the hijab and you're using that as an excuse to oppress ALL Muslim women. Shame on you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
YOU are the one who continually ignores what everybody is saying - i.e that YOU are the one who wants to oppress women. You ignored my use of the word oppressed. You have been shown that some women DO wear the hijab voluntarily. Why do you want to prevent them? Stop evading the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
We're not just talking about "full face and body coverings" here. There may be viable reasons for banning full face and body coverings in some circumstances. ... there really are oppressive reasons why women wear full face and body coverings.... But the argument in this thread includes the hijab. If you can come up with a reason for banning the hijab, beyond racism, feel free to roll it out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
So we could have ended slavery by banning chains?
But the burka, nikab and hijab can all be symbols of oppression and ways of subjugating women... Tangle writes:
Nobody is pretending any such thing. The point is that if ANY women make the choice, we can not legitimately prevent them. If there is ANY non-oppressive use for chains, we can not legitimately ban them. And banning them wouldn't eliminate the oppression anyway.
... we need to recognise that as a simple fact and stop pretending that it is only the woman's choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
That's what I've been saying - the idea of ending oppression by banning the symbols of oppression is absurd.
ringo writes:
Absurd So we could have ended slavery by banning chains? Tangle writes:
I can do that three times before breakfast.
Sure had me fooled. Tangle writes:
I have said that a ban may be legitimate in some circumstances. That does not legitimize a blanket ban.
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. "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".
What an idiotic thing to say. You can't integrate people by making them uncomfortable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Don't confuse "legal" with "legitimate".
ringo writes:
Yes it does. As demonstrated. That does not legitimize a blanket ban. Tangle writes:
There's nothing "extreme" about a hijab.
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. Tangle writes:
I don't know if you're deliberately trying to bait and switch.... The full body covering is a symbol of non-integration with the prevalent culture. 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. And please make clear how far you think it is "legitimate" to force immigrants to emulate their host culture. Should turbans be banned? Should long skirts be banned? Should the bindi be banned? Should speaking Hindi or Urdu in public be banned? Just how far are you willing to go to "integrate" newcomers?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
I'm saying that laws imposing a dress code on Muslim women are not legitimate.
Are you claiming that laws found to be fair by the Court of Human Rights are not legitimate? Tangle writes:
I 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.
Are you having difficulty dealing with nuanced arguments?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
So the devil made you do it?
I do not want to prevent them but must.... Greatest I am writes:
I've already said: So tell us, if surveys showed that most women are forced, would you ban the garb?1. If ONE woman voluntarily chooses to wear the hijab, she should be allowed to do so. 2. If any women are being forced to wear the hijab, banning the hijab will not prevent their husbands from oppressing them in other ways. You can't end oppression by banning the symptoms of oppression.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
I don't give a flying f**k if people are made uncomfortable by somebody else's clothing or skin colour or whatever.
I looked at surveys that show how many are uncomfortable around those who are wearing the garb in question. Greatest I am writes:
I'm against assimilation. Look what happened when we tried to assimilate aboriginal children by forcing them into residential schools. We need less forced assimilation, not more.
This shows how damaging to assimilation or integration the garb in question is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
No.
If they are coming to our land to live in our culture, should we not expect that they do so because they like our culture...? Greatest I am writes:
My grandparents came to Canada for the free farmland. They knew next to nothing about the culture, so how could they possibly like it or want it?
... if not, why would we want them...? Greatest I am writes:
Have you heard of history at all? The French and English didn't come to Canada because they wanted to "fit in". Why on earth would other immigrants come here to "fit in"?
... why would they want to live where they do not want to fit in?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
We ended slavery without banning chains.
We will not end oppression and slavery while accepting the signs of it. Greatest I am writes:
Damn right I wouldn't pass laws that suit the many by oppressing the few.
Nice to know though that you would not make laws that suit the many just to maintain a Muslims man pride of ownership. Greatest I am writes:
On the contrary, basic human rights require that the majority does NOT trample on the rights of the minority.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.That is an irrefutable moral position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
You're confusing legal with legitimate again.
The highest court in Europe has declared that the law forbidding the wearing of full face covering in France and Belgium is legitimate. tangle writes:
None of which have anything to do with the topic.
I want to shoehorn the culture to prevent, the worst aspects of Sharia law, FGM and honour crime.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
If you're not full-blooded aboriginal, that statement is pretty ironic. If you are, I'm sorry but we're not going anywhere. Well, as the Australians say, if you do not want to fit in, get the hell out. Far from embracing the aboriginal culture, we imposed ours on them. That attempt at assimilation caused more problems than it solved. We don't want to make the same mistake again. Instead, we'll absorb the good aspects of incoming cultures and we'll tolerate the other aspects. That's the Canadian way. We learned it from the aboriginals. If you don't like it, get the hell out.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024