|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
Then why are you promoting misogyny? Why not let women decide for themselves what they wear? If they say they are wearing something voluntarily, why not take their word for it? The women's expressed opinions don't figure into your policy at all.
Slave ownership and misogyny are not a right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Greatest I am writes:
First they wanted to ban the hijab and you did nothing because you're not a Muslim. Then they wanted to keep Muslims out entirely and you did nothing because you're not a Muslim.... "First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." — Pastor Father Niemoller (1946) Apparently, you missed the entire point of Niemoller's quote: If you let them persecute one group, eventually they'll come for you. We all have to stick together. By rejecting your proposed discrimination against Muslims, we're protecting you. Ironic, ain't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Canadian courts have ruled that banning the niqab is not legitimate, so I'm not alone. Maybe Europe just needs to catch up.
There is no other test other than individual opinion - yours against the European Court of Human Rights. Tangle writes:
What we're talking about here is oppression of women by dictating what they wear: oppression BY government.
Only if you wish to artificially seperate one form of female oppression from another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
I should clarify that the specific case involved wearing the niqab at a citizenship ceremony. From what I Googled:
I'd like to read that judgement - do you have a reference?quote: Other courts have ruled that a woman must remove her niqab for identification purposes. I have no problem with that.
Tangle 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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Under some forms of Christianity, wearing skirts is enforced. Let's ban skirts.
But we know that it is not, it's a requirement which under some forms of islam is enforced.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
I haven't seen any remotely convincing arguments that a dress code for women "benefits the community". Feel free to refresh my memory.
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. Tangle writes:
How is a hijab different from a turban? How is a hijab different from a bindi?
The clothing is not arbitrary nor is it equivalent to crosses or turbans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Our newly-elected government has promised to drop the appeal to the Supreme Court. link From what I can gather, your government introduced a law banning niqabs in 2011. There have been legal challenges which look like will result in a Supreme Court hearing. Edited by ringo, : Added reference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Yes, we've been through that "symbol" nonsense before. My response has always been that removing the symbol doesn't remove the oppression. ringo writes:
blah blah blah How is a hijab different from a turban? How is a hijab different from a bindi? By what mechanism is banning the hijab supposed to prevent oppression? It's illegal to wear the hijab in public, so an oppressive husband forbids his wife and daughters to go out in public. The oppression magically disappears. It's the same as making alcohol magically disappear. Look, not a single bar in the whole town! Maybe Muslims will have to open speakeasies where they're free to practice their religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
A court ruling is not evidence of benefits to the community.
ringo writes:
The judgement is here.... I haven't seen any remotely convincing arguments that a dress code for women "benefits the community". Feel free to refresh my memory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Why do you keep trying to bait and switch? What part of "hijab" do you not understand? I've never seen a burqa in my life but I see the hijab every day, so let's stick with reality for the moment. If you can establish a sensible reason for banning the hijab, we can move on. Do you really think that if a woman is forced to wear a black bag, head to foot with only a small veiled slit at the eyes.... I challenge you to even define what a hijab is. I've seen women wearing a scarf in the manner of a hijab. It gets cold in Canada, so scarves are quite common. Are you going to dictate how all women can wear their scarves? Or are you going to ban scarves altogether?
Tangle writes:
Nuh-uh isn't a very powerful answer. Tell us how banning one thing is different from banning another thing. Tell us how prohibition of the hijab will work better than prohibition of alcohol.
ringo writes:
No it's not. It's the same as making alcohol magically disappear Tangle writes:
So don't ban the hijab. Tax it heavily. The Scarf Tax should be a big revenue boost in Canada.
Smoking isn't banned, it's taxed heavily, restricted and institutionally frowned upon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
if they are, they shouldn't be.
But why do you think that governments are forbidding smoking even where the smoke would not offend or reach people? Greatest I am writes:
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes.... The answer doesn't change just because you repeat the question. Do you still think that the law should ignore the 75% just to appease the 25% whose indoctrination tells them that their invisible and absentee God wants them to cover their heads and faces? The majority does not have a right to oppress the minority, period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
I mention the hijab and you respond to the burqa. That's dishonest. We've done this, we're not only discussing the hijab. There is a fundamental difference between the hijab and the niqab/burqa. The niqab/burqa present problems of identification, the hijab does not. So let's decide whether or not it's acceptable to ban the hijab and then we can move on.
Tangle writes:
It's thoroughly relevant. Identification issues are separate from forced assimilation issues. The burqa represents both, the hijab only one. So let's deal with the forced assimilation issue first and then we can move on.
ringo writes:
That is, of course, totally irrelevant. I've never seen a burqa in my life Tangle writes:
How do you propose to enforce the prohibition from wearing them in public without some form of sanction?
No one is going to be prosecuted for ownership or dealing in burkas no matter how many they have. You get the difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
You could take your own advice and count how many times I've mentioned the niqab/burqa as opposed to the hijab. I say hijab and you respond to niqab/burqa. If you don't disagree with what I'm saying about the hijab, you can stop arguing with what I'm saying about the hijab.
Instead why don't you reread this this thread and count the number of times that I've told you that there is no fucking problem with the hijab - as far as bans are concerned. Tangle writes:
So you have no answer.
ringo writes:
This is becoming idiotic. How do you propose to enforce the prohibition from wearing them in public without some form of sanction?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
Stop trying to argue by bare links. If you have a point, make it.
Seems you are wrong as it happens in many countries now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5mixM0gChI
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
What was it?
ringo writes:
I just did. Stop trying to argue by bare links. If you have a point, make it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024