Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?

ringo writes:I should clarify that the specific case involved wearing the niqab at a citizenship ceremony.

ringo writes:How is a hijab different from a turban? How is a hijab different from a bindi?

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.

ringo writes:I haven't seen any remotely convincing arguments that a dress code for women "benefits the community". Feel free to refresh my memory.

In a Grand Chamber judgement published today, the top rights court ruled that there had been no violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The ruling was based on France’s aim of living together with the court accepting the State’s argument that a barrier to other people’s human rights was created by women wearing the burqa.
This barrier centred on the fact that it could stop people from feeling they could socialise with others, breaching their human rights to live in an inclusive society.

ringo writes: Yes, we've been through that "symbol" nonsense before. My response has always been that removing the symbol doesn't remove the oppression.

It's the same as making alcohol magically disappear

ringo 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

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.

Bliyaal writes:Smoking isn't banned, it's taxed heavily, restricted and institutionally frowned upon.
Indeed! It's well known that the hijab is damaging to your health and to the health of those around you.

ringo writes:I mention the hijab and you respond to the burqa. That's dishonest.
There is a fundamental difference between the hijab and the niqab/burqa. The niqab/burqa present problems of identification

So let's decide whether or not it's acceptable to ban the hijab and then we can move on.

How do you propose to enforce the prohibition from wearing them in public without some form of sanction?

Bliyaal writes:Why don't you answer the argument instead?